M- 


3-  ^ 


I  TlIEOLCmCAL'  SEMlN  \\Ci\ 


Booh\  No. 


5c::  <C 


'JH/. 


^A_ 


\ 


apj;'  "71)-) 
KOUL   JACOB 


IN 


DEFENCE 


OF 


THE  JEWISH  RELIGION . 

CONTAINING  THE 

ARGUMEJSTS 

OF 

THE  REV   C.  F.  FREY, 

ONE  OF  THE  COMMITTEE 

OF    THE 

.London  Society  for  the  Conversion  of  the  Jews  y 

AND 

ANSWERS  THERETO. 


BY 

JACOB  NIKELSBURGER. 


....LIVERPOOL,    PRINTED.... 

J^EW-YORK: 

RE-PRINTED    FOR    JOHN    REID,    BOOKSELLER. 

No.  ^9  WATER-STREET. 


1816. 


PREFACE, 


The  Rev.  C.  F.  FREY  (a  converted  Jew,) 
being  in  Liverpool,  in  the  month  of  September 
last,  invited  the  Jews  of  that  town,  by  public 
advertisement,  to  attend  a  Lecture  which  he 
proposed  to  give,  on  the  subject  of  the  Messiah. 
— Always  open  to  conviction,  and  ever  ready 
to  listen  to  what  those  who  differ  from  us  in 
opinion,  have  to  say  on  this  subject,  the  writer 
hereof  (a  Jew)  gladly  attended  at  the  time  and 
place  appointed :  but,  so  dissatisfied  was  he 
with  what  he  there  heard,  that  he  was  anxious 
to  learn  whether  this  Rev.  Gentleman  had  not, 
himself  stronger  grounds  for  having  altered  his 
own  opinions  on  this  subject,  than  those  he  then 
gave  to  induce  others  to  follow  his  example.  He^ 
therefore,  wrote  to  Mr.  Frey,  stating,  that  he  ac- 
cepted the  challenge,  which  he  understood  had 
been  given  by  him  to  the  Jews ;  and  was  wil- 
ling to  meet  him,  at  any  time  or  place,  (either 
public  or  private,)  which  he  (Mr.  F.)  would  ap- 
point, to  dispute  with  him  on  the  subject  of  the 
Messiah. 

This  letter  was  put  into  the  Post-Office,  at 
Liverpool,  directed  to  Mr.  Frey,  at  his  lodgings, 
on  the  20th  day  of  that  month ;  but  no  answer 
was  received  thereto  till  the  26th,  dated  the  25th, 
from  Manchester :  wherein  Mr.  F.  states,  that 
he  did  not  receive  the  letter  written  to  him  by 
Mr,  N.  before  he  had  left  Liverpool ;  and,  con- 


IV 


sequently,  that  he  conld  not  meet  Mr.  N.  as  he 
proposed  ;  but,  that  he  should,  at  any  time,  be 
g-ad  to  see  him  in  London,  for  the  same  pur- 
pose. Mr.  N.  not  being  such  an  enthusiast,  as 
to  be  tempted  to  make  a  journey  to  London,  for 
the  sole  purpose  of  disputing  with  Mr.  Frey^ 
wrote  again  to  him,  expressing  his  suspicion 
that  his  letter  mi:  i  have  been  received  by  Mr, 
F.  before  he  left  Liverpool ;  and  proposing  to 
carry  on  the  dispute  in  writing,  if  Mr.  F.  should 
prefer  that  mode. 

Mr.  F.  states,  in  a  subsequent  letter  from  Lon- 
don, that  he  is  surprised  at  such  an  injurious  sus- 
picion, and  persists  in  the  truth  of  what  he 
before  said  in  regard  to  Mr.  N.'s  letter.  Along 
with  this  last  letter  of  Mr.  F.'s,  he  sent  three 
pamphlets,  containing  his  arguments  on  the  sub- 
ject.— One  of  them  in  Hebrew,  called  "  Debray 
J\e^achony"  and  the  translation  thereof  in  Eng- 
lish, marked  No,  8,  London  Society :  the  other 
in  High  German,  called ''  Deboj^ah  V Israel!' — 
All  of  them  entitled,  ^^  Proofs  from  the  Ancient 
Prophecies,  that  the  Messiah  must  have  come, 
and  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  is  the  Messiah  ;  se- 
riously addressed  to  the  attention  of  the  Jewish 
Nation." 

A  full  and  correct  copy  of  each  argument,  is 
here  separately  given,  with  Mr.  N.'s  answers 
thereto. 

The  Author  here  begs  leave  to  observe,  that 
this  little  tract  has  been  written  under  great  dis- 
advantages. Owin«:  to  the  numerous  avocations 
in  which  he  is  engaged,  he  has  not  been  able  to 
devote  so  much  of  his  time  to  th©  consideration 


of  this  subject,  as  it  deserves,  and  which  he 
could  have  wished  to  bestow  upon  it :  nor,  owing 
to  his  situation  in  life,  has  he  been  able  to  refer 
to  the  writings  of  others,  whose  learning  has 
rendered  their  opinions  respected,  and  to  bring 
them  forward  in  support  of  his  own.      Besides, 
it  has  unavoidably ,  been  written  at  various  short 
hitervals  of  time,  which  he  has,  with  diificulty, 
been  able  to  snatch  from  the  necessary  attention 
to  business  ;    at  which  times  it  cannot  be  sup- 
posed that  his  mind  has  been  so  clear  and  un- 
incumbered with  other  matters,  as  is  requisite 
for  the  serious  consideration  of  such  a  subject. 
Doubtless  there  may  be  many  faults  and  inac- 
curacies, but  he  trusts  himself  to  the  indulgence 
of  a  generous  public  :  hoping,  that  for  the  above 
reasons,  and  on  account  of  his  being  a  foreigner, 
and  not  having  been  long  enough  resident  in 
this  country  to  acquire  a  thorough  knowledge 
of  the  language,  they  will  not  be  too  severely 
criticised.      This  he  can  say,  that  he  has  taken 
pains  not  to  deserve  censure,  and  if  it  has  been 
to  no  purpose,  it  will  not  be  his  own  fault*  And 
he  flatters  himself,  that  with  all  these  disadvan- 
tages, the  liberal  education  given  him  by  an  in- 
dulgent parent,  will,  at  least,  enable  him  to  re- 
fute, in  a  satisfactory  manner,  the  weak  argu- 
ments of  Mr.  Frey.     At  the  same  time,  that  he 
may  not  be  too  hastily  censured,  he  begs  leave 
to  request,  that  the  reader  will  not  form  his  opi- 
nion of  the  w^ork,  on  reading  only  a  part  of  it : 
but  that  he  w^ill,  first,  carefully  examine  and 
consider  the  whole  of  it.       For,  though  some  ol 
the  first  answers  or  arguments  mav  not  appear 


so  very  forcible,  when  separately  considered,  the 
whole  together  is  so  closely  connected,  that  he 
will  discover  them  to  grow  stronger  and  strong- 
er, as  he  proceeds  in  it :  and  what  he  may,  on 
first  sight,  conceive  to  be  wanting  in  the  b  gin- 
ning, he  may,  perhaps,  discover  to  be  satisfac- 
torily given  in  the  end. 

Liverpool,  4th  July,  1814. 


DEFENCE 


OF    THE 


JEWISH  RELIGION. 


To  the  Reverend  C.  F.  Frey^  Mount-Street^  Whitechapel^ 

London, 

Sir, 

1  DULY  received  your  letter,  and  the  pamphlets 
you  so  strongly  recommend  fi^r  my  serious  perusal 
and  consideration.  1  have  seriously  perused  and  con- 
sidered them,  and  in  a  candid  and  impartial  manner 
too  ;  but,  so  far  am  I  from  bein^  convinced  by  them, 
of  my  former  erroneous  opinions,  (as  you  please  to  call 
them)  on  the  subject  to  which  they  relate,  that  I  am 
only  the  more  strongly  satisfied  of  the  weakness  of  the 
grounds  on  which  yours  are  founded. — Want  of  books 
to  which  I  might  refer  for  my  further  satisfaction,  and 
want  of  leisure  time  to  devote  to  the  consideration  of 
this  subject,  are  the  reasons  why  you  have  not,  before 
this  time,  received  ray  thoughts  and  observations,  on  the 
arguments  adduced  by  you  in  the  pamphlets.  Hither- 
to, I  have  been  unable  to  meet  with  the  books  to  which 
I  would  wish  to  refer ;  and,  therefore,  to  delay  my  an- 
swer no  longer,  I  must  trust  to  the  recollection  of  what 
I  have  read  whilst  at  school  -,  and  this,  I  trust,  will  suf- 


% 


# 


iicientlj  enable  me  to  answer  your  arguments  in  a   sa- 
tisfactorj  manner. 

f,  at  all  times,  wish  to  avoid  religious  controversy, 
for  many  reasons ;  but,  as  you  have  so  repeatedly  chal- 
lenged the  Jews  to  dispute  with  them,  I  could  not  re- 
sist the  impulse  I  felt  to  try  your  strength.     I  wish  to 
be  understood,  however,  that  1  write  merely  in  answer 
to  your  arguments,  and  not  against  any  religion  what- 
soever; being  firmly   persuaded  that  there  are  good 
men  of  all  religions,  and  that  they  all  act  from  their 
own   particular   motives    and    reasons,    and    conceive 
themselves  to  be  in  the  right.     WhetherJ they  are  or  are 
not  so,  is  not  for  you  nor  me  to  determine.  Their  motives 
and  reasons  may  be  unknown  to  us,  and,  therefore, 
there   can   be  no  dispute  or  argument   against  them. 
We  all  serve  one  God  at  last,  though  in  different  ways. 
It  is  very  far  from  my  wish  to  interfere  with  them,  or 
to  give  offence  to  any  one.     Much  less  do  I,  or  any  one 
of  my  nation,  wash  or  attempt  to  make  proselytes  to 
our  opinions ;  and  so  contemptible  an  action  do  I  con- 
sider it  to  be,  to  endeavour  to  do  this,   that  I  cannot 
bring  myself  to  believe  the   different  reports  I  have 
heard,  of  some  persons  who  offer  bribes  and  rewards 
to  their  fellow  creatures,  to  tempt  them  to  apostasy ; 
but,  could  any  of  our  nation  be  weak  enough  to  be  se- 
duced by  such  means,  we  should  consider  him  unwor- 
thy of  all  society,  and  be  glad  to  get  rid  of  him. 

My  brethren,  the  Jev/s,  no  doubt,  have  their  reasons 
for  not  attending  to  your  challenge.  Perhaps  they 
may  be  of  the  above  opinion.  Or,  perhaps,  they  may 
suppose,  that  when  a  person  finds  it  to  be  his  interest, 
to  profess  to  believe  any  particular  doctrine,  the  task 
would  be  one  of  no  little  difficulty,  to  attempt  to  in- 


duce  hitn  to  recant,  and  speak  according  to  his  convic* 
tion  :  except  by  oflfers  o(  superior  advantages.  Could 
I  have  availed  myself  of  the  abilities  of  some  of  the 
learned  of  our  nation,  still  more  glaring  errors  and 
contradictions  might  have  been  pointed  out :  for,  weak 
indeed  must  your  arguments  be,  if  I,  (who  consider 
myself,  in  point  of  learning,  as  nothing,  in  comparison 
with  them)  I,  who  am  destitute  of  books  to  refer  to, 
and  can  spare  but  little  time  to  devote  to  the  conside- 
ration of  this  subject,  am  able  to  discover  so  many  ! 

In  your  eagerness  to  convert  the  Jews  to  your  way 
of  thinking,  you  make  no  scruple  of  converting  and  per- 
verting the  prophets,  by  turning  their  words  to  a 
meaning,  which  you  conceive  to  be  best  adapted  to 
your  purpose  :  and,  in  doing  this,  you  make  them  not 
only  flatly  contradict  each  other,  but   themselves  also. 

Independent  of  the  proofs  I  shall  here  bring  forward 
in  answer  to  your  arguments,  I  have  it  in  my  power 
(and  could  show  it  you,  if  I  thought  it  would  be  of  any 
avail)  to  bring  forward  many  others,  equally  as  unde- 
niable and  incontrovertible,  both  from  the  New  and 
Old  Testament,  in  support  of  opinions  diametrically 
opposite  to  those  you  profess  :  and  these,  too,  more 
reconcileable  with  the  prophets  on  whom  you  seem  to 
rely.  But  1  shall  confine  myself,  at  present,  entirely 
to  the  examination  of  the  proofs  you  bring  forward  in 
support  of  your  opinions,  and  of  your  arguments  there- 
on; and  my  object  will  be  attained,  when  I  show  how 
erroneous  and  contradictory  they  are  from  beginning 
to  end. 

It  is  not  my  object  to  correct  them,  for  it  would 
be  folly  to  attempt  to  teach  you  the  real  significa- 
"^ion  of  the  prophecies,  until  you  are  satisfied  aiid  will 

B 


10 

candidly  admit,  that  your  own  construction  is  erro* 
neous. 

I  will  proceed,  without  further  comment,  to  the  con- 
sideration of  them ;  and  endeavour  to  explain  myself 
as  concisely  and  intelligible  as  I  can,  in  a  language 
which  is  foreign  to  me  :  for,  though  1  might  have  ex- 
plained my  ideas  more  clearly  in  the  Hebrew  Lan- 
guage, yet  I  fear  it  would  be  easier  for  me  to  write, 
than  for  others  to  understand. 

You  divide  your  subject  into  two  parts  :  the  former 
to  prove  that  the  Messiah  is  already  come ;  and  the 
latter,  to  prove  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  that  Mes- 
siah. The  two  parts  must  connect  and  correspond  to- 
gether ;  the  proofs  of  the  one  must  not  contradict  the 
other  ;  and  if  you  fail  in  the  first,  the  proof  of  the  other 
is  rendered  unnecessary. 

The  substance  of  your  first  proof  or  argument,  that 
the  Messiah  is  already  come,  is  as  follows  : 

First.  "  Jacob  foretels  that  the  sceptre  shall  not  depart  from 
"  Judah,  nor  a  lawgiver  from  between  his  feet,  until  Shiloh  shall 
"  come ;  therefore,  if  the  sceptre  be  departed  from  Judah,  and  if  he 
"  have  no  longer  a  lawgiver, then  Shiloh  must  be  come;  because 
"  his  coming  is  represented  as  preceding  the  departure  of  the  scep- 
^<  tre  and  the  cessation  of  the  lawgiver  from  Judah." 

In  the  first  place,  I  shall  take  the  liberty  of  transcri- 
bing, from  the  English  version  of  the  Old  Testament, 
the  words  ascribed  to  Jacob;  and  perhaps,  it  may  ap- 
pear that  you  have  omitted  a  few  words,  which  materi- 
ally affect  the  signification  of  the  whole  passage.  Gen. 
chap.  xlix.  v.  10.  "  The  sceptre  shall  not  depart 
"  from  Judah,  nor  a  lawgiver  from  between  his  feet^ 
"  until  Shiloh  come,  and  unto  him  shall  the  gathering  of 
"  the  people  6e."  In  the  next  place,  I  beg  leave  to  oh- 
^erve,  that  the  literal  signification  of  the  word  a^y  here 


11 

gendered  sceptre^  but  which  you  conceive  to  be  better 
rendered  rod  of  the  tribe,  or  tribual  sceptre^  is  neither 
one  nor  the  other ;  nor  can  I  help  remarking  the  im- 
propriety of  departing  from  the  literal  signification  of 
the  word,  to  render  it  by  another,  to  which,  (as  you 
observe),  it  may  be  turned  by  a  common  figure  of  speech^ 
for  the  purpose  of  rendering  the  passage  unintelli- 
gible. 

As,  however,  I  profess  to  fight  you  with  your  own 
weapons,  I  must  take  them  in  the  state  in  which  you 
present  them  to  me.  Let,  then,  the  interpretation  of 
the  word  remain  undisturbed  ;  and  I  proceed  to  show 
that  in  either  sense,  viz,  as  regal  or  tribual  sceptre^  the 
passage  is  rendered  inconsistent,  and  contradictory. 

It  is  universally  acknowledged,  that  Shiloh  should 
come  from  the  the  seed  of  David^  who  is  from  the  seed 
o(  Judah  ;  and  great  pains  have  been  taken  by  writers 
of  the  New  Testament  to  convince  us  by  long  genea- 
logical tables,  that  Joseph  was  from  the  seed  of  iJavid^ 
who  was  from  the  seed  of  Judah  ;  and  yet  this  same 
Joseph  is  not  believed  to  be  the  father  of  Jesus.  YoU 
believe  (upon  what  grounds  I  am  not  aware)  that 
Jesus  was  also  from  the  seed  of  Judah.  Let  it  be  ad- 
mitted for  the  sake  of  argument.  INow,  mark  the  con- 
cluding words  of  the  verse.  "  Unto  him"  (Shiloh, 
whom  you  believe  to  be  Jesus)  "  shall  the  gathering  of 
the  people  be."  What  can  this  mean  more  or  less, 
than  that  the  people  (then  scattered)  shall  be  gath- 
ered to  him,  as  their  head  and  ruler,  and  lawgiver? 
Then,  if  Jesus  be  the  Messiah,  or,  if  the  Messiah  be 
from  the  seed  ofJudah^  and  "  unto  him  shall  the  gather- 
ing of  the  people  be,'''  of  course  the  sceptre  will  remain  in 
Jiidah  at  his  comino:.     And,  whether  the  spiritual  or 


12 

temporal  sceptre  may  be  contended  to  be  meant,  it  ig 
immaterial,  for  the  spiritual  must  rule  and  include  the 
temporal  sceptre. 

According  to  these  words  of  Jacobs  it  must  be  con- 
cluded, that  the  sceptre  shall  not  depart  from  Judah. 
from  the  time  they  are  made  use  of  by  Jacobs  until^  {and, 
not  before^  Shiloh  shall  come  (whom  you  believe  to  be 
Jesus.)  Now  Judah  had  no  sceptre  nor  lawgiver,  even 
tn  Jacobus  time^  nor  for  many  years  after  ;  and  many 
hundred  years  before  the  birth  of  Jesus ^  the  Jews  had  no 
sceptre  nor  lawgiver :  they  were  a  conquered  nation, 
and  in  bondage  in  Egypt  and  in  Babylon,  and  were 
subject  to  kings  and  laws  of  other  nations.  Even  at 
the  time  of  the  second  temple,  they  were  also  without 
a  sceptre^  and  subject  to  other  kings.  Then,  if  the  scep- 
tre did  depart  before  the  coming  of  Jesus,  and  it  was 
to  depart  after  his  coming,  what  must  we  make  of  Ja- 
cob's blessinof  ? 

Jigain. — You  are  aware  of  the  absurdity  of  the  word 
being  rendered  regal  sceptre^  and  therefore,  inform  us 
that  you  are  persuaded  that  the  tribual  sceptre  is  alone 
meant.     You  further  add  : 

"  Jacob  plainly  speaks  of  something  that  should  appertain  to  Ju- 
"  dah,  from  that  very  time,  to  the  coming  of  Shiloh.  Now  Judah 
"  did  not  possess  the  regal  sceptre  until  many  years  after,  and  he 
"  lost  it  at  the  Babylonian  Captivity  ;  therefore  the  regal  sceptre 
''  cannot  be  meant ;  and  if  not,  the  tribual  sceptre  must." 

This  conclusion,  one  is  apt  to  consider  as  too  hastily 
drawn.  According  to  the  words  of  an  old  English 
proverb,  ''  You  are  reckoning  without  your  host."  It 
did  so  happen,  that  at  the  time  mentioned^  Judah  did  7iQt 
possess  the  tribual  sceptre;  you  admit  it  did  not 
possess  the  retral  sceptre  ;  you  agree  with  me  also, 
that  Jacob  plainly  speaks  of  something  that  should  ajjper- 


13 

tain  to  Jiidah^  from  that  very  time  to  the  coming  of  Ski- 
loh.''''  Therefore,  the  sentense  as  it  stands,  amounts  to 
no  more  nor  less  than  this :  That  which  you  hive  not 
noiv^  shall  not  depart  from  you  until  Shiloh  comt  ! 

For  the  sake  of  argument,  let  it  be  admitter!  that  Ju- 
-dah  had  the  tribual  sceptre  or  rod  of  the  tribe,  in  Ja- 
cob's time. 

The  words  ''  shall  not  depart  until  Shiloh  come^''^  na- 
turally import,  that  it  shall  depart  as  soon  as  Shiloh 
shall  cojue^  and  not  after  Shiloh  shall  have  come. 
Now  the  tribual  sceptre  did  not  depart  from  Ju- 
dah  until  many  years  after  the  death  of  Jesus,  ac- 
cordinor  to  your  own  admission,  not  until  the  con- 
elusion  of  the  seventy  weeks  of  Daniel,  which  was 
thirty-seven  years  after  the  death  of  Jesus — the  year  se- 
venty of  the  christian  a3ra 

Jigaifi. — the  rejecting  of  Jesus,  is  ascribed  as  the  cause 
of  the  punishment  of  the  Jews — as  the  cause  of  the  seep- 
tre  departing  from  them,  and  of  their  being  dispersed 
and  scattered  over  the  face  of  the  earth.  Now  when 
Jacob  foretels  that  this  shall  be  the  case,  if  the  rejecting 
of  Jesus  be  the  cause  of  it,  he  consequently  foretells  that 
Jesus  shall  be  rejected.  Jacob  then  must  have  been  a 
very  cruel  and  unnatural  father,  if,  knowing  the  cause 
of  his  children  being  thus  condemned  to  suffer,  he  hid 
it  from  them,  and  did  not  advise  them  not  to  reject  Je- 
sus. And  if  he  knew  it  not,  and  spoke  only  by  the 
command  or  inspiration  of  God,  then  he  positively  de- 
clares and  commands  that  they  shall  reject  him  ;  else  he 
could  not  positively  say  that  the  sceptre  shall  depart  at 
his  coming.  Then,  if  he  positively  declares  that  the 
Jews  shall  reject  Jesus,  does  it  not  appear  unjust  that 
they  should  be  punished  for  doing  what  was  command- 


14 

ed  by  one  vvhoai  they  were  well  pursuaded  was  a  true 
prophet,  and  spoke  from  divine  inspiration  :  and  be 
blamed  for  rejecting  Jesus,  whom  they  did  not  know  to 
be  a  true  one  ?  Their  choice  was  taken  away  by  pre- 
ordination, and  they  did  no  more  than  they  had  been 
commanded  to  do. — The  argument  against  predestina- 
tion cannot  apply  here  ;  for  the  knowledge  of  man 
must  not  be  compared  with  the  knowledge  of  God. 
Though  incomprehensible  to  us,  it  is  not  impossible 
that  God  may  have  the  knowledge,  and  man  the  free 
will  :  but  admitting  that  Jacob  speaks  by  divine  inspi- 
ration, and,  consequently,  that  his  words  are  the  words 
of  God,  then  we  have  a  communication  of  the  know- 
ledge of  God,  which  is  tantamount  to  an  express  com- 
mand. 

Upon  the  whole,  you  cannot  but  admit  that  the  pas- 
sage, as  it  now  stands,  is  either  completely  inconsistent 
and  cojitradictory,  or  erroneously  translated. 

I  must  not  conclude  my  observations  upon  Jacob's 
prophecy,  without  noticing  your  apparent  reluctance  to 
have  any  thing  to  do  Vv^ith  the  words  '•  nor  a  laiogiver 
from  between  his  feet.''^  You  appear  particularly  cau- 
tious of  approaching  too  near  these  ^cei  of  Judah^  hav- 
ing great  reason  to  fear,  that  the  interpretation  of  the 
original  passage,  and  your  arguments  built  thereon, 
would  receive  a  kick  from  them,  which  they  would  not 
be  able  to  survive.  The  words,  "  the  sceptre  shall  not 
depart  from  Jiidah  nor  a  lawgiver  from  between  his 
feet,''  you  wish  to  be  understood  thus  :  ''  the  sceptre  and 
the  lawgiver  shall  not  depart^^"'  ^'c.  In  the  different  parts 
of  your  arguments  your  words  are,  ''  if  the  sceptre  be 
•'  departed  from  Judah,  and  if  he  have  no  longer  a  law- 
■^  giver — the  departure  of  the  sceptre  and  the  cessation 


"  of  the  lawgiver — the  sceptre,  whether  regal  or  tribaal, 
"  and  ivith  it  the  authorized  laivgiver  has  departed.''''  Not 
a  word  about  "from  between  his  feet.'''  1  challenge  your 
ingenuity,  to  give  me  such  an  explanation  of  these  words, 
as  will  correspond  with  your  explanation  of  the  other 
part  of  the  passage. 

Now  for  your  second  proof : 

*'  Daniei,  in  his  i'amous  proi)liecy  of  the  seventy  weeks,  fixes 
"  the  coming  of  the  Messiah  to  a  certain  period,  to  be  calculated 
*'  from  the  going  forth  of  some  decree,  to  restore  and  to  build  Jeru- 
•'  salem.  And  he  foretels,  that  after  this  advent  of  the  Messiah, 
•'  the  sacrifice  and  oblation  sh;ill  be  caused  to  cease,  that  the  end 
*'  of  the  Jewish  nation  shall  be  with  a  flood,  or  (agreeably  to  tlie 
"  language  of  prophecy,)  a  hostile  invasion,  and  that  their  land 
"  shall  be  laid  utterly  desolate  ;  tliereibre,  if  the  sacrifice  and  ob- 
*'  lation  have  been  abolished — if  the  Jewish  nation  has  been  car- 
'-  ried  away  by  a  hostile  invasion— if  their  land  has  been  desola- 
"  ted — then  the  Messiah  mast  have  come  ;  because  Daniel  repre- 
*'  sents  him  as  coming  before  all  these  events  should  take  place.'' 

Let  us  first  have  the  exact  words,  and  then  proceed 
to  argue  on  them,  Dan.  chap.  ix.  v.  24.  "Seventy 
'«  weeks  are  determined  upon  thy  people,  and  upon  thy 
•^  holy  city,  to  finish  the  transgression,  and  to  make  an 
"  end  of  sins,  and  to  make  reconciliation  for  iniquity, 
"'•  and  to  bring  in  everlasting  righteousness,  and  to  seal 
•'  up  the  vision  and  prophecy,  and  to  anoint  the  most 
"  holy. — 25.  Know  therefore  and  understand,  that  from 
*Vthe  going  forth  of  the^  commandmentUo  restore  and 
"  to  build  Jerusalem  unto  the  Messiah  the  prince,  shall 
^'v  be  seVen  weeks,  knd  three-score  and  two  vv^eeks  :  the 
"  street  shall  be  built  again,  and  the  wall,  even  in  trou- 
''  blous  times, — 26.  And  after  thre^-scbre  and  two 
*'  weeks^  shall  Messiah  be  cut  off,  but  not  for  himself; 
"  and  the  people  of  the  prince  that  shall  come,  shall 
••  destroy  the  city   and   the  sanctuary ;   and   the  end 


16 

*•  thereof  shall  be  with  a  flood  ;  and  unto  the  end  of  the 
^'  war  desolations  are  determined. — 27.  And  he  shall 
"  confirm  the  covenant  with  manj  for  one  week  :  and 
-'  in  the  midst  of  the  week  he  sliall  cause  the  sat^rifice 
'*  and  the  oblation  to  cease,  and  for  the  overspreading  of 
^'  abominations,  he  shall  make  it  desolate,  even  unto 
"  the  consummation,  and  that  determined,  shall  be 
**  poured  upon  the  desolate." 

The  seventy  weeks  here  mentioned,  I  believe  are 
universally  allowed  to  be  weeks  of  years,  viz  :  one 
week  seven  years,  making  in  the  whole,  four  hundred 
and  ninety  years.  This  time,  then,  "  is  determined  oa 
"  Daniel's  people  {the  Jeivs)  and  his  holy  city,  to  finish 
"  their  transgression,  and  to  make  an  end  of  sins,  and 
"  to  make  reconcihation  for  iniquity,  and  to  bring  in 
"  everlasting  righteousness,  and  to  seal  up  the  vision 
"  and  prophecy,  and  to  anoint  the  most  holy." — Either 
these  happy  times  are  to  commence  within  the  seventy 
weeks,  or  else,  after  the  expiration  thereof.  We  cannot 
well  conceive  that  they  were  enjoyed  by  the  Jews,  with- 
in the  seventy  weeks,  if  we  rely  upon  the  next  verse, 
for-an  account  of  what  is  to  take  place  during  that  time, 
viz. ;  "  To  the  time  of  Messiah  the  prince  shall  be  se- 
"  ven  weeks,  and  in  three-score  and  two  weeks  after, 
"  the  street  shall  be  built,  and  the  wall,  even  in  trouble- 
"  soiue  times^  and  then  the  Messiah  shall  be  cut  off, 
"  and  the  people  of  the  prince  that  shall  come  shall 
"  destroy  the  city  end  the  sanctuary^  afid  the  end  thereof 
"  shall  be  loiih  a  floods  and  unto  the  end  of  the  war  desola- 
."  tionsy — Here  we  have  an  account  of  what  shall  take 
place  durino^  sixty-nine  weeks,  and  then  "  during  one 
'^  week"  (which  makes  up  the  seventy),  "  he  shall  con- 
^^  firm  the  covenant  with  many  j  and  in  the  midst  of  the 


17 

<•  week,  he  shall  cause  the  sacrifice  and  the  oblation  to  cease  ^^ 
"  and  for  the  overspreading  of  abomination,  he  shall 
^^  make  it  desolate,  even  until  the  consummation  ;  and  that 
'•  determined,  shall  be  poured  upon  the  desolate." 

Do  we  find  any  thing   here,  like  the  "  finishing  of 
"  transgressions,"  the  "  end  of  sins  :"  ''  reconciliation 
"  for  iniquities,"  or  "  everlasting  righteousness  ?" — No. 
— Then  if  we  find  not  these  happy  times  within  the  se- 
venty weeks,  w^e  must  naturally  look  for  them  after  the 
expiration  thereof ;  and   conclude,  that  Banicl  in   the 
three  concluding  verses  of  the  chapter  only  describes 
what  miseries  and  troubles  the  Jewish  nation  will  under- 
go, during  the  seventy  weeks^  which  were  determined  on, 
to  finish  their  transgressions,  previous  to  the  commence- 
ment of  the  promised  happy  times,  and  before  the  "  an- 
nointing  of  the  most  holy^     The  hebrew  words  ^-^p^'^v 
(here   rendered  "  most  holy,")   are,  literally,  the  sanc- 
tum sanctorum,  ov  "  holy  of  holies."     But,  whether  you 
may  ap})ly  it  to  the  temple,  or  the  Messiah^    it  is  imma- 
terial ;  for,  according  to  your  own  calculation  of  the 
seventy  weeks,  I  think  you  cannot  show  me,  that  after 
the  expiration  thereof  there  has  yet  been  either  a  Messiah 
or  a  temple  anointed  ;  or  that  the  Jews  have    enjoyed 
those  happy  times,  which  appear  to  be  there  promised. 
/jgain, — You  say  thai  '-'  Daniel  fixed  the  coming  of 
'•  the  Messiah,  to  a  certain  period,  to  be  calculated  from 
"  the  o-olno-  forth  of  some  decree  to  restore  and  to  build 
*'  Jerusalem." — Now  let  us  examine  how  the  coming  of 
Jes^s  (whom  you  believe  to  be  the  promised  McssiaJi) 
will  correspond  with  the  w^ords  of  the  prophecy.     In 
verse  25,  we  are  told,  that  the  Messiah  the  prince  will 
appear  at  die  end  of  the  seventh  week,  before  the  re- 
building of  Jeruscdem,     This,  then,  cannot  be  Jesu^:  ar 


18 

he  was  not  bom  till  three  hundred  and  fifty  years  after  the 
rebuilding  of  Jerusalem.  The  second  temple  is  well 
known  to  have  stood  four  hundred  and  twenty  years,  ex- 
clusive of  the  time  employed  in  rebuilding  it ;  and,  as 
it  was  not  destroyed  till  seventy  years  after  the  birth  of 
Jesus,  it  must  have  been  built  three  hundred  and  fifty 
years  before  his  birth. 

In  verse  26,  we  are  further  told,  that  in  three-score 
and  two  weeks,  or  four  hundred  and  thirty-four  years  af- 
ter his  appearance,  the  Messiah  shall  be  cut  off.  As  so 
many  years  appear  to  have  been  allotted  to  this  Mes- 
siah, perhaps  it  may  be  concluded,  that  another  Messiah 
must  have  been  meant  ;  though  we  are  not  previously 
informed  when  he  was  first  to  make  his  appearance,  or 
how  the  other  Messiah  would  be  disposed  of.  There 
is  another  reason  also  for  supposing  that  they  are  not 
one  and  the  same,  for  there  is  a  distinction  made  be- 
tween them  ;  the  first  is  styled  Messiah^  the  prince^  and 
the  next  Messiah  only  ;  which  merely  signifies,  anoint- 
ed., and  was  appHed  in  common  to  kings,  prophets,  and 
high  priests,  if  anointed.  It  cannot  here  be  said  to 
mean  a  redeemer,  for,  at  that  time,  the  Jews  were  not 
much  in  want  of  a  redeemer  ;  they  had  been  previous- 
ly redeemed  and  gathered  together,  and  their  city  and 
temple  restored  and  rebuilt.  Besides,  it  would  seem 
strange  that  a  redeemer  should  be  sent  only  to  witness  the 
''  destruction  of  the  city  and  sanctuary,"  and  "  desolation 
and  hostile  invasion,"^-  which  were  immediately  to  follow 
after  his  coming.  However,  allowing  this  to  be  a  se- 
cond Messiah,  we  are  abruptly  told  only^  that  he  shall 
be  cut  off.  The  word  n-\2^  (careth)  rendered  "  cut  off," 
does  not  signify  put  to  death  by  man  ;  but  destroyed 
by  heaven — cut  off  soul  and  body — ^totally  annihilated. 


19 

Let  me  first  ask,  whether  you  believe  this  to  have 
been  the  case  with  Jesus^  whom  you  consider  to  be  the 
Messiah  mentioned  ?  and  then,  let  me  Inquire  whether 
Jesus  was  put  to  death  at  the  same  tinic^  viz  :  "  on  the 
expiration  of  sixty-nine  weeks — at  the  time  of  the  de- 
struction of  the  city — and  half  a  week,  or  three  years 
and  a  half  before  the  cessation  of  the  sacrifice  and  obla- 
tion ?"  No,  Jesus  was  put  to  death  thirty  seven  years  he- 
fore  the  destruction  of  the  city  and  sanctuary,  (which 
yourself  acknowledge,  was  in  the  year  seventy  of  the 
christian  sera)  and  more  than ybr/y  years  before  the  ces- 
sation of  the  sacrifice  and  oblation. 

A  man  must  be  more  than  naturally  shrewd,  to  dis- 
cover in  this  prophecy  of  Daniel  any  thing  at  all  rela- 
ting to  Jesus.  The  word  Messiah  Is  twice  used  by 
Daniel  ;  both  of  them  (if  two  are  meant)  are  equally 
inapplicable  to  Jesus.  If  we  consider  them  to  be  one 
and  the  same,  we  find  he  was  born  three  Imndred  and 
seventy  one  years  before  Jesus,  and  lived  four  hundred 
and  thirty-four— whereas,  Jesus  was  only  thirty-three 
years  old  at  the  time  he  was  put  to  death.  And,  if  we 
must  suppose  that  Daniel  promised  two  Messiahs,  then 
we  find  that  the  second  Is  not  cut  off  till  thirty-seven  years 
after  Jesus  was  put  to  death  !  Then,  are  we,  wit!}  our 
eyes  open,  In  the  face  of  these  Irreconcileable  contradic- 
tions, to  believe  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah  spoken  of 
by  Daniel,  merely  because  he  made  his  appearance  be- 
fore the  consummation  of  certain  events  predicted  by 
Daniel  ?  On  the  same  ground  of  reasoning,  we  may 
believe,  that  any  other  person  born  after  the  time  of  the 
issuing  of  the  decree  to  re-build  Jerusalem,  and  hefore 
the  destruction  of  the  Jewish  nation,  and  the  cessation 
of  the  sacrifice  and  oblation,  to  have  been  the  promis*^ 
*!d  Moseiah, 


20 

The  argument  used  before,  when  speaking  of  J  acob'j:; 
prophecy,  as  to  predestination,  may  also  be  applied 
here,  to  the  prophecy  of  Daniel.  For,  if  tlie  rejecting 
of  Jesus  was  the  cause  o(  the  punishment  which  he  fore- 
tels  shall  be  inflicted  on  the  Jews,  (as  before  observed) 
their  free  choice  or  free  will  was  taken  away.  But, 
even  if  the  choice  had  been  left  them,  could  it  be  rea- 
sonably expected,  that  after  knowing  the  crreat  miracle 
perforirsed  by  Daniel,  who  came  alive  out  of  the  lion's 
den,  and  also  in  DanieVs  time  by  Shedrack,  Meshack  and 
Abednego,  who  came  alive  out  of  the  fiery  furnace,  and 
yet  did  not  presume  to  call  themselves  Gods^ — could  it,  I 
saj,  be  reasonably  expected,  that  they  should  choose  to 
contradict  that  great  prophet,  and  to  receive  Jesus  as  a 
GocI^  who  did  not  show  them  any  such  miracles,  tliough 
lie  called  himself  o/ic  .^  When  they  knew  that  ^rea/er 
miracles  had  been  performed  by  those  who  v/ere  not 
looked  upon  as  Gods^  and  did  not  profess  to  be  Gods, 
does  it  not  appear  unjust,  that  they  should  be  punished 
for  not  I'eceiving  Jesus  as  God,  when  he  did  not  con- 
vince them  of  his  divine  power,  by  even  showing  them 
miracles  at  least  as  great  as  they  showed  ?  For  if  we  ad- 
mit the  truth  of  all  the  miracles  said  to  be  performed 
by  Jesus,  they  are  not  so  great  as  lliose  performed  in 


Daniel's  time.    ^/ 


Your  third  proof : 

-'  Haggai  speaks  of  the  second  temple  as  being  far  inferior  in 
*'  glory  to  the  first,  and  yet  afterwards  says,  that  the  glory  of  the 
"  latter  house,  shall  be  greater  than  that  of  the  former.  The  rea- 
"  son  which  he  assigns  for  this  apparent  contradiction,  is  that  the 
*'  iiesire  of  all  nations  should  come,  and  that  the  Lord  of  hosts  would 
"  thus  fill  the  second  house  with  glory.  Blalachi  similarly  foretels. 
"  that  the  Lord  Avhom  the  Jews  were  seeking  or  expecting,  even 
*•  the  messenger  of  the  covenant,  should  suddenly  come  to  his  tem- 


21 

•■^  pie.  It  appears,  therefore,  that  the  person  styted,  '  The  deairn 
=  '  of  all  nations,  and  the  messenger  of  the  covenant,'  was  to  shew 
*'  himself  in  the  second  temple  ;  consequently,  if  he  was  to  shew 
"  himself  in  the  second  temple,  he  was  to  come  while  it  was  stand- 
-'  ing  ;  therefore  if  it  be  no  longer  standing,  he  must  already  have 
=  '  come." 

You  have   here  extracted  from  the  two  prophets. 
Haggai  and  Malaebl,  such    passages  as   you  conceive 
will  answer  your  purpose  ;  but  you  do  not  give  us  the 
substance  of  what  precedes   and  follows,  though   so 
closely  connected  with  them,  that  without  it  the  sense 
is  vague  and  uncertain.     Either  you  have  not  read  the 
whole  of  the  two  chapters    from   which   you   extract 
these  passages,  or  you  do  not  understand  them,  or  vou 
have   wilfully  perverted  the    meaning    thereof     You 
force  a     contradiction,    where     in    fact   none    exists, 
for  the  purpose  of  showing  your  ingenuity  in  reconci- 
ling it  in  a  manner,  best   adapted  to  your  purpose.     I 
shall,  therefore,   again  be  under  the  necessity  of  tran- 
scribing   the    exact   words.     Haggai,    chap.    ii.  after 
speaking  of  the   second  temple  (which  Avas  then  buil- 
ding, and    in  an   unfinished  state,)  as  being  inferior  to 
ilie  first,  says,  verse  4.     "  Yet  now  be  strong,  O  Ze- 
*•  rubbabel,   saith  the  Lord  ;  and   be  strong  O  Joshua, 
'*  son  of  Josedech,  the  high  priest ;  and  be  strong  all 
''-  ye  people  of  the  land,  saith  the  Lord,  cmd  work :    for 
^'  I  am  with  you,  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts — 6.  Yet  once, 
••  it  is  a  little  while,  and  1  will  shake  the  heavens,  and 
•  the  earth,  and   the  sea,  and  the  dry  land — 7.  And  I 
^'  will  shake   all  nations,  and  the  Desire  of  cdl  7iations 
'*  shall  come  :  and  1  will  fill  the  house  with  glory,  saitlj 
-'  the  Lord  of  hosts.— 8.  The  silver  is  mine  and  the  gold 
-  is  mine,  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts. — 9.  The  glory  of  this 
•'  latter  liouse  shall  be  greater  than  the  former,   saith 


22 

^^  the  Lord  of  hosts  :  and  in  this  place  will  I  give  peace, 
"  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts." 

If  you  understand  the  Hebrew  language,  I  must  ei- 
ther conclude  that  you  have  not  taken  the  trouble  of 
comparing  the  original  with  the  translation  here  given, 
or  else  that  you  are  afraid  of  informing  us,  that  there  is 
a  most  palpable  inaccuracy;  lest,  the  prophecy  turning 
out  to  have  a  very  different  meaning,  to  what  you  apply 
to  it,  your  arouments  built  thereon  should  fall  to  the 
ground.  Now,  if  you  do  understand  the  language,  I 
beg  you  will  take  the  trouble  to  refer  to  the  original 
Hebrew,  and  you  will  there  find  the  word  1^21  (uba- 
Hu.)  'This  word  is  not  singular^  but  plural ;  not  he  or 
it  shall  come,  but  ^/le?/  shall  come.  Nor  does  the  word 
"  desire,"  clearly  convey  the  real  signification  of  the 
word  men  (cHEMDATH,)  which  follows  it.  It  is  also  of 
the  plural  number,  the  nominitive  case  of  the  above 
verb  tibahu^  and  means,  the  most  valuable  effects,  or 
those  things  most  prized  or  coveted  by  all  nations. 
And  does  not  the  following  verse  most  plainly  show, 
what  is  meant  by  tlie  word  "  chemdath ;"  viz.  "  The 
silver  is  mine,  and  the  gold  is  mine,  saith  the  Lord  of 
hosts  .^"  It  will  be  evident  to  any  person  understand- 
in  o^  the  orio-inal  Hebrew,  if  he  will  take  the  trouble  of 
reading  it,  that  it  does  not  at  all  relate  to  the  promised 
Messiah.  Haggai  speaks  of  the  second  temple  which 
is  then  building,  and  reproves  the  people  for  their  want 
of  diligence  m  completing  it.  He  says,  in  chap,  i.  v.  2, 
*•  this  people  say.  The  time  is  not  come,  the  time  that 
"  the  Lord's  house  shall  be  built.  Verse  3.  Then 
"  came  the  word  of  the  Lord  by  Haggai  the  prophet, 
^'  saying, — 4.  Is  it  time  for  you,  O  ye,  to  dwell  in 
-'  vour  ceiled  houses,  and  this  house  lie  waste  .'^"     He 


23 

then  tells  them,  that  God  has  punished  thejn  for  aul- 
fering  the  temple  to  remain  in  its  then  unfinished  state 
Verse  14.  "  And  the  Lord  stirred  up  the  spirit  o\ 
♦'  Zerubbabel  and  Joshua,  and  the  spirit  of  all  the  rem- 
*'  nant  of  tlie  people  ;  and  they  came  and  did  work  in 
*'  the  house  of  the  Lord  of  hosts  their  God."  This  ap- 
pears to  have  been  on  the  twenty-fourth  day  of  the 
sixth  month,  of  the  second  year  of  Darius.  In  the  fol- 
lowing chapter,  on  the  twenty-first  day  of  the  following 
month,  he  says,  verse  3,  "  Who  is  left  among  you  that 
"  saw  this  house  in  her  first  glory  ?  and  how  do  yofl 
"  see  it  now  ?  Is  it  not  in  your  eyes  in  comparison  oi 
*'  it  as  nothing  .^"  And  then  in  the  next  verse,  he  en- 
courages them,  and  says,  "  And  now  be  strong,  O 
♦'  Zerubbabel  and  Joshua,  and  be  strong  all  ye  people 
^'*  of  the  land,  and  ivorJc^  for  1  am  Wiih.  you."  And  in 
verse  7,  he  says,  "  I  will  shake  all  nations,  and  the 
'^things  most  coveted  by  all  nations  (in  the  English  version, 
the  Desire  of  all  nations)  "  shall  come."  Verse  8, 
"  The  silver  is  mine,  and  the  gold  is  mine  :"  And  then 
he  adds,  verse  9,"  The  glory  of  the  latter  house  shall 
*'  be  greater  than  that  of  the  former,"  viz. ;  after  the 
work  shall  be  finished,  and  after  the  7nost  valuable  or 
precious  effects  of  all  nations,  or  the  things  most  coveted, 
or  desired  by  them — silver  and  gold,  &cc.  shall  have 
come,  then  it  will  be  greater.  Here  there  is  no  contra- 
diction at  all.  It  cannot  be  denied,  that  this  is  the  real 
signilicalion  of  Haggai,  and  that  the  intended  meaning 
of  the  word  chemdath  is  evidently  explained  in  the  fol- 
lowing verse.  If  the  Messiah  was  meant,  why  should 
silver  and  gold  be  spoken  of  in  the  next  verse  ."^ 
What  connection  could  there  possibly  be  between 
the    Messiah    and    silver   and   gold  ?     Jesus    (whom 


24 

jou  believe  to  be  spoken  oi)  displsed  the  jlci^.e? 
of  this  world.  But  it  is  utterly  impossible,  that 
the  word  which  precedes  it  (iibahu)  can  relate  to  the 
Messiah ;  for,  as  before  observed;  it  is  in  the  plural  num- 
ber, and  does  not  signify,  that  he  shall  come,  but  they 
shall  come.  To  give  forced  meanings  to  clear  passages, 
is  the  sure  way  never  to  understand  one  another. — - 
Observe  again.  In  the  same  chapter,  immediately- 
preceding  the  words,  "the  desire  of  all  nations  shall 
come;"  he  says,  "  the  Lord  w'ill  shake  all  nations  ;"  and 
for  w^hom,  but /or  the  Jews  ?  as  he  is  promising  them, 
that  the  most  valuable  effects  of  all  nations  shall  come 
there,  and  that  he  will  fill  the  house  with  glory. 
And  further,  he  says,  "  In  this  place  will  I  give  peace  ;" 
and  yet.  you  believe  that  Jesus  came  to  shake  the  Jews^ 
and  to  take  the  sceptre  and  lawgiver  away  from  them. 
And  according  to  the  words  of  Daniel,  that  "  the  city 
and  sanctuary  should  be  destroyed,  and  that  there 
should  be  hostile  invasion,  w^ar  and  desolations." 

Whether  Jesus  came  to  give  peace^  let  us  judge  from 
his  own  words.  He  says,  Mat.  x.  v.  34.  "  Think  not 
"  that  1  am  come  to  send  peace  on  earth  ;  I  came  not  to 
"  send  peace  ^  but  a  sword — 35.  For  I  am  come  to  set  a 
^'  man  at  variance  against  his  father,  and  the  daughter 
'^  against  her  mother,  and  the  daughter-in-law  against 
"  her  mother-in-law — 36.  And  a  man's  foes  shall  be  they 
'•  of  his  own  household." 

You  say, 

"  Malachi  similarly  foreteJs,  that  the  Lord,  whom  the  Jews 
•'  were  seeking,  or  expect'ng,  even  the  messenger  of  the  covenantj 
*'  should  suddenly  come  to  his  temple." 

Malachi  chap.  iii.  begins,  "  Behold,  I  will  send  my 
"  messenjrer.  and  he  shall  prepare  the  way  before  me  ; 


**  and  the  Lord,  whom  ye  seek,  shall  suddenly  come  to 
*^'  his  temple,  even  the  messenger  of  the  covenant, 
"  whom  ye  delight  in?'' — We  do  not  find  that  any  mes- 
senger came  Vj  prepare  the  way  before  Jesas  ;  nor  did 
he  come  suddenly  ;  at  least,  it  does  not  appear  that  lie 
came  more  suddenly  than  other  children  usually  come. 
It  is  not  pretended,  that  the  virgin  Mary  did  not  go 
her  usual  time  with  him  ;  and  we  are  told,  that  he  was 
regularly  begotten,  and  born  at  Bethlehem,  near  Jeru- 
salem ;  and,  that  he  did  not  begin  his  ministry,  before 
he  was  thirty  years  old.  And,  I  think  you  will  not  pre- 
tend to  say,  that  his  being  rejected  and  persecuted  by  the 
Jews,  was  any  very  strong  sign  of  their  delighting  in 
him. 

Tell  me,  now,  what  Malachi  meant  by  the  word  cove- 
nant ?  and  what  covenant  we  have  had  since  the  birth 
of  Jesus,  by  which  we  may  be  induced  to  believe,  that 
he  was  the  messenger  o£  it  ? 

Is  it  the  law  that  is  meant  by  the  covenant  ? 

The  Mosaic  law  cannot  be  meant,  as  that  was  made 
many  hundred  years  before  Jesus  was  born  ;  and  as  to 
that^  Moses  himself,  would,  with  greater  propriety,  be  en- 
titled to  be  styled,  "  The  Messenger  of  the  Covenant." 
— Is  it  what  you  call  the  new  law  ?  Then,  why  did  Je- 
sus say,  he  came  to  strengthen  the  old  law  ?  And  why 
did  Malachi  in  the  same  chapter  say,  "  /  am  the  Lord^ 
I  change  not.''''  But,  you  make  him  to  make  a  double 
change — you  make  him  to  change  the  law,  and  then^ 
change  his  own  words  ! — But,  kt  it  be  admitted,  that 
the  covenant  means  \he  new  law — you  observe  hereaf- 
ter, from  Jeremiah,  chap.  31.  v.  33,  That  "  this  law 
will  be  put  in  their  inward  parts,  and  written  in  their 
JwartSj''^  and  this;  (as  appears  from  the  preceding  verse. 


26 

which  states  that  the  old  law  was  broken)  was  to  bfe 
done  for  the  purpose  of  preventing  it  being  broken  again. 

But,  it  does  not  appear  to  me,  that  either  the  old  or 
the  new  law  has  yet  been  written  very  .deeply  in  the 
hearts  of  either  Jews  or  Gentiles  ;  for  we  see  too  much 
business  in  our  courts  of  justice,  and  too  many  poHtical 
dissentions,  which  drench  the  earth  with  human  blood, 
to  be  readily  inclined  to  think  so. 

I  do  not  suppose  you  would  have  us  to  believe,  that 
Malachi  meant  the  covenant  of  which  Jesus  was  the 
messenger^  in  Matthew  x.  v.  35,  before  mentioned. 

Jtgain^ — Verse  2.  He  is  said  to  be  *'  like  a  refiner's 
"  fire,  and  like  fuller's  soap'^ — 3.  And  he  shall  sit  as  a 
"  refiner  and  purifier  of  silver,  and  he  shall  purify  the 
"  sons  of  Levi ^  and  purge  them  as  gold  and  silver,  that 
"  they  may  offer  unto  the  Lord  an  offering  in  righteous- 
^^  ness — 4.  Then  shall  the  offering  ofJudah^  and  Jeru- 
"  salem^  be  pleasant  unto  the  Lord,  as  in  the  days  ofold^ 
"  and  as  in /ormer  years." 

Now,  you  would  have  us  to  believe,  that  Daniel  and 
Malachi,  both  spake  of  the  same  Messiah,  whom 
you  believe  to  be  Jesus — and  yet  Daniel  says  "  that 
at  his  coming  the  sacrifice  and  oblation  shall  cease^'^^  and 
J\Ialachij  "  that  it  shall  be  pleasant  unto  the  Lord^  as  in 
the  days  of  old  P'' — How  are  we  to  reconcile  this  con* 
Iradiction  ?  Nor  were  the  sons  of  Levi  purified  by  Je- 
sus, for  they  did  not  believe  in  him. 

Perhaps  you  may  contend,  that  the  prophecy  of  Ma- 
lachi was  only  conditional  ;  and,  that  if  the  Jews  had  not 
rejected  Jesus,  they  would  have  been  blessed  in  the 
manner  he  describes  ;  but  then,  as  you  make  Jacob  and 
Daniel  to  have  prophesied  before^  that  the  sceptre  should 
depart,  and  that  the  sacrifice  and  oblation  should  cease^ 


27 

&c. ;  and,  as  Malachi  cannot  be  supposed  to  have  been 
ignorant  o(  the  writings  of  Jacob,  and  more  particularly 
of  those  of  Daniel,  with  whom  he  was  co-temporary,  and 
particularly  acquainted,  how  are  we  to  account  for,  or 
reconcile  this  flat  contradiction  of  each  other,  if  we  are 
satisfied  with  your  erroneous  construction  of  these 
prophecies  ? 

1  have  now  gone  through  your  proofs,  that  the  Mes- 
siah (whom  you  believe  to  be  Jesus)  is  already  come  ^ 
and,  I  think,  have  pretty  clearly  shown,  how  strangely 
you  pervert  them,  and  how  weak  are  your  arguments 
founded  thereon,  if,  then,  I  have  satisfactorily  disprov-^ 
ed  the  first  part  of  your  subject,  there  is  no  necessity  to 
lake  notice  of  the  second  ;  which  is  so  intimately  con- 
nected with  the  first,  that  if  that  falls,  the  other  must 
fall  with  it.  But  as  I  have  begun,  I  have  no  objections 
to  go  through  with  it ;  and  to  take  the  pains  of  showing 
you  the  errors  and  contradictions  in  the  second  part  of 
your  subject. 

You  tell  us,  that 

"  Any  person  need  only  compare  the  prophecies  contained  iu 
"  the  52d  and  63d  chapters  of  Isaiah,  with  the  history  of  the  suffer- 
*'  ings  and  death  of  Jesus,  as  recorded  in  the  Gospels,  to  be  con-  • 
"  vinced  how  exactly  they  tally  together," 

Now  let  us  see  how  exactly  they  tally  together. 

Chap.  52  commences,  "  Awake,  awake ;  put  on  thy 
'^  strength,  O  Zion  ;  put  on  thy  beautiful  garments,  O 
''  Jerusalem,  the  holy  city:  for  henceforth  there  shall 
'*  no  more  come  into  thee  the  uncirciimciscd  and  the  itn" 
^^  clean.''^ — 2d.  "Shake  thyself  from  the  dust;  arise, 
"  and  sit  down,  O  Jerusalem,  loose  thyself  from  the 
"  bands  of  thy  neck,  O  captive  daughter  of  Zion." — 
After  professing  your  belief,  that,  after  the  coming  of 


28 

Jesus,  the  city  and  temple  should  be  destroyed,  can  jou., 
consistently,  believe,  that  this  can  relate  to  him  ?  One 
would  think  that  there  is  some  difference  between  "  de^ 
struction^^''  and  '''•putting  on  sirmgth^''''  and  ''''loosing  from 
the  bands  ;''  indeed,  the  whole  chapter  speaks  of  re- 
demption  and  7iot  of  destruction, — I  also  ask  you,  whe- 
ther, since  the  coming  of  Jesus,  there  have  not  been  m 
Jerusalem  any  more  "  uncircumcised  and  unclean  .^" 

Ver.  7.  "  How  beautiful  upon  the  mountains  are  the 
"  feet  of  him  that  bringeth  good  tidings,  that  publisheth 
"  peace  :  that  bringeth  good  tidings  of  good,  that  saith 
"  unto  him,  thy  God  reigneth." — 8.  "  Thy  watchmen 
'*  shall  lift  up  the  voice,  with  the  voice  together  shall 
"  they  sing :  for  they  shall  see  eye  to  eye,  when  the 
"  Lord  shall  brino:  ao;ain  Zion." — 9.  "  Break  forth 
'*  into  joy,  sing  together,  ye  waste  places  of  Jerusalem  .* 
"  for  the  Lord  hath  comforted  his  people ;  he  hath  re- 
"  deemed  Jerusalem." — 10.  "  Depart  ye,  depart  ye,  go 
"  ye  out  from  thence,  touch  no  unclean  thing ;  go  ye 
"  out  of  the  midst  of  her :  be  ye  clean  that  bear  the 
"  vessels  of  the  Lord." — IL  "  For  ye  shall  not  go 
"  out  with  haste,  nor  go  by  flight,  for  the  Lord  will  go 
^'  before  you;  and  the  Lord  of  Israel  shall  be  your 
"  reward." 

Who  is  hardy  enough  to  deny,  that  Isaiah  speaks  of 
the  redemption  of  Israel  ?  In  verse  9  he  says,  he  had 
"  redeemed  Jerusalem ;''  and  in  verse  10  he  says,  "  De- 
part ye,  depart  ye,  go  out  from  thence  ;" — from  whence. 
but  from  the  land  of  bondage  ? — You  will  not  say,  that 
since  the  birth  of  Christ,  the  Jews  or  Jerusalem^  have 
ever  yet  been  redeemed — just  the  contrary. 

Ver.  13.  "  Behold  my  servant  shall  deal  prudently;. 
^*  he  shall  be  exalted  and  extolled,  and  be  very  high." 


29 

Surely  the  term  servant^  would  be  very  inapplicable 
to  Jesus,  whom  you  consider  to  be  God  himself :  nor, 
have  we  any  instances  of  his  having  been  "  cxdled^''  or 
''  extolled^''  or  "  very.  highP 

Ver.  14.  "  As  many  were  astonished  at  thee,  his 
"  visage  was  so  marred^  more  than  any  man,  and  his 
"/orm  more  than  the  sons  of  men.'' — Chap.  liii.  ver.  2d. 
"  For  he  shall  grow  up  before  him  as  a  tender  plaPit, 
"  and  as  a  root  out  of  a  dry  ground  :  he  hath  no  form 
"  nor  comeliness^  and  when  we  shall  see  him,  there  is  no 
'*  beauty  that  we  should  desire  him." 

In  the  first  place,  let  me  ask,  who  is  this  "  he  .^"  or 
where  is  this  he  to  come  from  } — not  a  word  of  the  seed 
o(  David  ov  Judah,  in  this  chapter. — Was  the  visage  of 
Jesus  "  so  marred  more  than  any  any  man,  and  his 
form  more  than  the  sons  of  men  .^" — But,  we  are  told, 
immediately  after,  that  he  had  no  visage  : — for  this  is 
the  real  meaning  of  the  word  ^»"io  (marah,)  which,  in 
the  2d  ver.  of  the  r>3d  chap,  is  improperly  rendered 
^'  form,'^  Had  Jesus  720  visage  nor  comeliness^  and,  when 
he  was  looked  upon,  was  he  so  misshapen.,  that  nothing 
could  be  seen  in  him,  which  any  one  could  desire  ? — 
If  so,  he  must  have  been  a  very  different  person,  to 
what  you  make  Haggal  say  he  should  be,  viz.  "  the  desire 
of  all  nations,^'' — But,  pray,  is  it  comeIi?iess  that  man 
should  desire  in  man  ? 

Ver.  3d.  "  He  is  despised  and  rejected  of  men;  a 
man  of  sorrows  and  acquainted  with  grief;  and  we  hid 
as  it  Avere,  our  faces  from  him  :  he  was  despised,  and 
we  esteemed  him  not." 

I  believe  the  Jews  never  did  hide  their  faces  from  Je- 
sus ;  but  we  have  many  instances  of  Jesifs  having  done 
£0,  for  fear  of  the  Jeivs^ 


30 

Jlgain.—ki  the  time  when  Jesus  preached  in  the 
temple,  he  must  have  been  etseemed,  or  he  would  not 
have  been  suffered  to  preach  there ;  nor,  would  he 
have  been  suffered,  with  impunity,  to  have  made  such 
a  commotion  amongst  the  buyers  and  sellers,  the  mo- 
ney changers  and  the  sellers  of  doves,  as  we  are  told 
he  did. — St.  Luke  tells  us,  chap,  iv.  ver.  15,  that  "  he 
taught  in  their  synagogues,  and  was  glorified  of  all 
men." 

Ver.  4th,  "  Surely  he  hath  borne  our  griefs,  and 
"  carried  our  sorrows;  yet  we  did  esteem  him  stricken^ 
«  smitteil  of  God  and  afflicted." 

If  I  mistake  not,  you  admit  that  the  word  here  ren- 
dered "  stricken^''''  v^jj  (nogua)  means,  plagued  with 
the  leprosy  (see  Levit.  chap.  xiii.  ver.  13.) — We  are  not 
told  that  Jesus  was  a  leper^  for  he  professed  to  heal  it. 
Indeed,  if  he  had  been  one,  the  Jews  would  not  have 
permitted  him  to  have  "  disputed  daily  in  the  temple," 
or,  indeed,  to  to  have  come  any  where  near  it ;  either 
for  that  purpose,  or  "  to  cast  out  them  that  sold  and 
"  bought,  to  overthrow  the  tables  of  the  money  chan- 
^'  gers,  and  the  seats  of  them  that  sold  doves,"  or  for  any 
other  purpose  whatever. — On  the  contrary,  he  would 
have  been  expelled  the  city,  and  no  communication  held 
with  him ;  until  he  had  been  cured  and  purified,  ac- 
cording to  the  law. — (Levit.  the  same  chap.) 

Ver  5th.  ^'  But  he  was  wounded  for  our  trans- 
"  gressions  ;  he  was  bruised  for  our  iniquities ;  the 
"  chastisement  of  owr  peace  was  upon  him,  and  with  his 
'^  stripes  loe  are  healed." 

You  will  not  deny  that  Isaiah  was  a  Jew^  and  that 
he  is  addressing  himself  0^?/^  to  the  Jews. — Then  if  Je- 
sus be   the  person  here  alluded  to,  the  Jews  should 


31 

liave  been  ''  healed  by  his  stripes  ;''  whereas,  you  say 
they  committed  a  great  sin  bv  bruising  him,  and  were 
severely  pwiished,  instead  of  being  healed. 

And  further,  if  Jesus  be  the  person  spoken  of  by  Isai- 
ali,  how  can  you  'account  for  their  being  pimishcd  for 
doing  what  he  told  them  should  be  done^  and  by  the  do- 
ing of  which,  he  promised  them  they  should  be  healed? 

And  again — after  saying,  in  ver.  7,  "  he  is  brought 
"  as  a  lamb  to  the  slaughter^''^  he  says,  in  the  beginning 
of  ver.  10,  "yet  it  jyleased  the  Lord  to  bruise  him  :" 
from  which,  and  from  what  immediately  follows,  in  the 
same  verse,  we 'naturally  cenclude  that  the  "  bruising''^ 
means  the  "  slaughter ^^"^  or  the  '•  sacrifice.^''  Then  again 
I  ask,  if  Jesus  be  meant,  why  the  Jews  should  he  pu- 
nished^ for  doing  that  which  the  prophet  had  communi- 
cated to  them,  they  would  please  the  Lord  by  doing  ? 
or,  which  it  pleased  the  Lord  shouldhe  done  ? 

I  cannot  help  remarking  here  (though  foreign  to  our 
subject)  that  if  it  be  true,  as  some  people  say  it  is,  that 
when  Isaiah  says,  he  was  bruised  for  our  iniquities,  and 
*'  with  his  stripes  we  are  healed,"  he  means  the  Gen- 
tiles ;  and  if  it  be  true,  as  some  people  also  say  it  is, 
that  Jesus  is  the  person  he  alludes  to,  I  cannot  help  re- 
marking, I  say,  that  the  Gentiles  are  under  great  obli- 
gations to  the  Jews,  for  having  bruised  him,  and  ought 
to  treat  them  with  a  little  more  courtesy  than  is  usual  : 
for  if  the  Jews  had  not  bruised  Xixm-^ihe  Gentiles  would 
not  have  been  healed. 

Ver.  8th.  "  He  was  taken  from  prison,  and  from 
"judgment  ;  and  who  shall  declare  his  generation^  for 
•'  he  was  cut  off  out  of  the  land  of  the  living^  By  tlie 
words,  "  who  shall  declare  his  generation  ?"  we  must 
understand  ivho  shall  know  ivhohe  was,  or  from  whence 


32 

he  came.  Bat  if  Jesus  be  meant,  and  he  be  Shiloh^  and 
unto  him  be  the  gathering  of  all  the  nations  ;  of  course, 
all  the  nations  will  declare  his  generation. 

It  would  seem  from  the  Avords  '•  he  was  cut  off  out 
of  the  land  of  the  limng^''''  that  the  person  alluded  to 
would  be  cut  off  from  a  place  of  livings  to  a  place  where 
there  is  7io  living  :  for,  it  is  not  said,  put  to  death,  or 
cut  off  from  the  earth,  but  "  out  of  the  land  of  the  liv- 
ing.''''— And  as  you  believe  Jesus  to  have  ascended  into 
heaven^  (which  is  more  properly  the  place  of  the  livings 
than  this  earth,  which  is  mortal)  and,  to  live  there  for 
ever,  y6u  cannot  suppose  he  is  the  person  spoken  of  by 
Isa?ah.      "';  • 

Ver.  9th.  "  And  he  made  his  grave  with  the  wicked 
"  and  with  the  rich  in  his  c/ea//i." 

The  Hebrew  word  ^'^^J^^  (bemothov),  here  rendered 
'•  in  his  f/ea/V'  is  in  the  plural  number,  "  in  his  deaths^^ 
and  we  are  not  told  that  Jesus  died  more  than  once. 

Ver.  10th.  "  Yet  it  pleased  the  Lord  to  bruise  him  ; 
"  he  hath  put  him  to  grief :  when  thou  shalt  make  his 
"  soul  an  offering  for  sin,  he  shall  see  his  seed^  he  shall 
"  prolong  his  days,  and  the  pleasure  of  the  Lord  shall 
"  prosper  in  his  handP 

Not  a  word  about  the  resurrection  is  mentioned  ! — 
nor  can  I  imagine,  how  an  immortal  soul  can  hesucrifi- 
cedhy  others ! — and  pray  who  is  that  thvu^,  and  who  is 
that  his  ? 

The  word  dn  (aim),  is  here  improperly  rendered 
"  Avhen,"  the  real  import  is  "  if;"  so  that  this  is  only 
a  conditional  promise — "  if  thou  shalt  make  his  soul  an 
"  offering  for  sin,  he  shall  see  his  seed,  he  shall  prolong 
"  his  days,  and  the  pleasure  of  the  Lord  shall  prospe^r 
^'-  in  his  hand  :  or,  in  other  words,  "  If  thou  shall  not 


33 

*^  make  his  soul  an  offering  for  sin,  he  shall  not  see  hi9 
'•  seed^  his  days  shall  not  be  prolonged,  nor  shall  the 
**  pleasure  of  the  Lord  prosper  in  his  hand. '' — Then,  if 
Jesus  be  the  person  spoken  of — Jesus,  whom  you  be- 
lieve to  be  coequal  with  God — is  this  a  language  to  be 
made  use  of  to  him  ?  or,  is  there  any  condition  with 
God? 

Jigain.-^^'-  He  shall  see  his  seed^  The  word  child  or 
children  may  be  indiscriminately  applied  to  all,  or  any 
of  our  fellow  creatures  ;  and  so  we  often  find  it,  parti- 
cularly in  the  scriptures  :  but  the  word  seed  cannot.  It 
is  only  applied  to  our  own  issue  or  descendants.  Now, 
we  are  not  told,  that  Jesus  was  ever  married ;  or, 
that  he  had  any  children^  whether  he  was  so  or  not.  If 
he  had  any,  perhaps  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  might 
have  been  a  little  affected  by  it. 

dgain. — "  He  shall  prolong  his  days.'''' — To  say  no- 
thing of  the  absurdity  of  these  words  being  applied  to  a 
God^  (which  you  believe  Jesus  to  be,)  we  do  not  find 
that  the  days  of  Jesus  were  prolonged  ;  but,  on  the  con- 
trary, that  they  were  shortened  :  for,  reckoning  the  or^ 
difiary  life  of  man,  at  three-score  and  ten  years,  Jesus 
was  cut  off  before  he  had  lived  half  his  days.  Observe 
also,  that  the  word  prolong,,  cannot  be  applied,  in  a 
spiritual  sense,  nor  to  what  you  have  given  him — "  life., 
everlasting :''''  for  the  word  has  a /mzVcc/ signification,  and 
merely  imports,  to  make  longer,  or,  to  lengthen  in  du' 
ration, 

Ver.  11th.  "  He  shall  see  of  the  travail  of  his  souL, 
and  shall  be  satisfied  ;  by  his  knowledge,  shall  my 
righteous  servant  justify  many  ;  for  he  shall  bear  their 
iniquities."  Here  we  have  again  the  term  servant; 
which,  as  before  observed,  is  vcrv  inapplicable  to  God^ 

K  • 


34 

Ver.  12 til.  "  Therefore  will  1  divide  him  a  portion 
with  the  greaf^  and  he  shall  divide  the  spoil  with  the 
strong^^''  &;c. — What,  or  where  was  i\ie portion  of  Jesus 
with  the  greats  and  where,  and  when,  did  he  divide  the 
spoil  with  the  strong  ?  You  can  give  no  instance  of  62- 
ther  whilst  he  was  on  earth  ;  and,  if  you  should  say  It 
would  take  place  when  he  returned  to  heaven^  you  make 
it  still  stronger  against  yourself ;  at  least,  so  far  as  it  af- 
fects the  attributes  and  godhead o(  Jesus,  as  1  proceed  to 
show. 

In  the  first  J)lace,  the  Hebrew  word  o'^na  (burabim) 
is  improperly  translated  "  with  the  great^'^  the  real 
meaning  is  '' with  a  mafiy.'^''  Taking  the  word,  howe- 
ver, in  either  sense,  it  is  in  the  plural  number.  Then,  I 
ask  you,  who  are  the  many  or  the  great,  and  who  are  the 
strong,  with  whom  he  is  to  have  his  portion  divided, 
and  with  whom  he  is  to  divide  the  spoil?  and  what 
portion  or  what  spoil  is  to  be  divided  ? — Admitting  the 
doctrine  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  we  see  that  God  himself  is 
speaking,  and  as  you  profess  to  believe,  of  Jesus,  his 
only  Son  ;  so  that  the  Holy  Ghost  only  remains. — The 
Holy  Ghost  could  not  be  spoken  of  in  the  plural  num- 
ber, either  as,  with  the  many,  with  the  great,  or,  with  the 
strong.  But  the  word  great  or  strong,  being  only  in  the 
first  degree  of  comparison,  cannot  be  applied  to  God,  who 
is  superlative.  Then  it  must  be  applied  to  some  inferi- 
or to  God :  in  which  case,  the  power  of  Jesus  would  not 
be  only  inferior  to  that  of  God,  but  also  divided  with  oth- 
ers,also  inferior  to  him. — And,  further,  God  says,  ^^  I  will 
divide  to  him  ;"  which  shows  superiority  in  God  ;  and 
also,  that  he  is  not  consubstantial  with  Jesus,  the  person 
you  believe  to  be  spoken  of. — Besides,  throughout, 
could  it  be  more  evident,  that  the  person  spoken  of,  is  a 


35 

being  inferior  to  the  person  speaking  ?  Tiic  word  ser- 
vant^ is  twice  made  use  of,  and  promises  of  reward  held 
out,  as  from  a  master  to  a  servant. 

Now,  after  having  carefully  compared  the  two  cliap- 
ters  of  Isaiah,  to  which  you  refer  me,  if  "  tallying  to- 
gether ^^'^  mean  flatly  contradict,  then  I  will  agree  witlv 
you,  that  they  do  "  exactly  tally  together  with  the  histo- 
ry of  the  sufferings  and  death  of  Jesus.''  I  beg  you 
will  excuse  me,  however,  for  observing,  that  in  your 
explanation  of  Isaiah,  or  of  any  of  die  other  prophets> 
you  have  called  to  your  aid,  you  do  not  show,  that  you 
are  gifted  with  any  uncommon  share  of  penetration. 

To  coMvince  you,  more  forcibly,  how  "  exactly''"'  Isai- 
ah does  not  suit  your  purpose,  I  will  make  a  few  more 
extracts  from  him,  which  will  "  exactly  tally'''*  v/ith  a  very 
different  construction^  to  what  you  give  of  him,  and  other 
prophets. 

Isaiah^  chap  2,  ver.  1. — "  The  word  that  Isaiah,  the 
"  son  of  Amoz,  saw  concerning  Judah  and  Jerusalem.''^ 
— Ver.  2.  "  And  it  shall  come  to  pass  in  the  last  days, 
*'  that  the  mountain  of  the  Lord's  house  shall  be  esta- 
"  blished  in  the  top  of  the  mountains,  and  shall  be  ex- 
^'  alted  above  the  hills  ;  and  all  nations  shall  flow  imtoit,^^ 
— Ver.  3.  "  And  many  people  shall  go  and  say,  come 
"  ye,  let  us  go  to  the  mountain  of  the  Lord,  of  the  house 
"  of  the  God  of  Jacob,  and  he  will  teach  us  of  his  ways, 
"  and  we  will  walk  in  his  paths,  for  out  of  Zion  shall 
''^  go  forth  the  law,  and  the  word  of  the  Lord  from  Je- 

"  rusalemy Ver.  4.  "  ^/^nd  he  shall  jffdge  aniojig  the 

"  nations,  and  shall  rebuke  many  people  :  and  they 
"  shall  beat  their  swords  into  ploughshares,  and  their 
"  spears  into  pruning-hooks  :  nation  shall  not  lift  up 
•'  sword  against  nation,  neither  shall  they  learn  war  any 


36 

'•  more^  Ver.  5.  "  0  House  of  Jacob,  come  ye,  and 
^'  let  us  walk  in  the  light  of  the  Lord." 

Here  you  see  what  we  have  to  expect  at  the  coming 
of  0U7'  Redeemer ;  for,  as  we  have  not  yet  seen  such 
happ^  times,  of  course,  we  must  expect  them  yet  to 
come. 

Has  there  been  no  war  since  the  birth  of  Jesus,  or  no 
more  use  for  arms  ?  Have  not  joloughshares  and  priming' 
hooks  rather  been  turned  into  sivords  and  spears,  than 
the  reverse  ? 

The  above,  is  a  complete  contradiction  to  what  you 
imagine  Isaiah  to  have  meant  in  chap.  53d ;  and,  to  the 
construction  you  put  upon  the  prophecies  of  Jacob, 
Daniel,  and  others. 

We  are  here  told,  that  out  of  Z ion  shall  go  forth  the 
law  ;  and,  that  "  all  nations  shall  flow  unto  Judah,^''  and, 
that  he  shall  judge  among  the  nations. — Is  this  any  thing 
]ike  the  sceptre  and  the  lawgiver  departing  from  Judah, 
at  the  coming  of  Shiloh,  as  you  would  persuade  us  was 
xneant  by  Jacob  ? 

Chap  ii.  ver.  1  st.  "  And  there  shall  come  forth  a  rod 
out  of  the  stem  of  Jesse,  and  a  branch  shall  grow  out 
of  his  roots." — Ver.  2d.  "  And  the  spirit  of  the  Lord 
shall  rest  upon  him,  the  spirit  of  wisdom  and  under- 
standing, the  spirit  of  counsel  and  might,  the  spirit  of 
knowledge  and  of  the  fear  of  the  Lord." — Ver.  3. 
''  And  shall  make  him  of  quick  understanding  in  the 
fear  of  the  Lord  ;  and  he  shall  not  judge  after  the  sight 
of  his  eyes,  neither  reprove  after  the  hearing  of  his 
ears." — Ver.  4.  "  But  with  righteousness  shall  he  judge 
the  poor,  and  reprove  with  equity  for  the  meek  of  the 
earth  :  and  he  shall  smite  the  earth  with  the  rod  of  his 
mouth,  and  with  the  breath  of  his  lips  shall  he  slay  tl^e 


37 

wicked." — Ver.  5th.  "  And  righteousness  shall  be  the 
girdle  of  his  loins,  and  faithfulness  the  girdle  of  his 
reins.'-— Ver.  6th.  "  The  wolf  shall  dwell  with  the 
lamb,  and  the  leopard  shall  lie  down  with  the  kid  ;  and 
the  calf,  and  the  young  lion,  and  the  fatling  together  ; 
and  a  little  child  shall  lead  them." — Ver.  7.  "  And  ihe 
cow  and  the  bear  shall  feed ;  their  young  ones  shall 
lie  down  together  :  and  the  lion  shall  eat  straw  like  the 
ox." — Ver.  8.  "  And  the  suckling  child  shall  play  at 
the  hole  of  the  asp,  and  the  weaned  child  shall  put  his 
hand  on  the  cockatrice's  den." — Ver.  9.  "  They  shall 
not  hurt  nor  detstroy  in  all  my  holy  mountain :  for  the 
earth  shall  be  full  of  the  knowledge  of  the  Lord,  as  the 
w^aters  cover  the  sea." — Ver.  10th.  "  And  in  that  day, 
there  shall  be  a  root  of  Jesse^  which  shall  stand  as  an 
ensign  of  the  people  ;  to  it  shall  the  Gentiles  seek  :  and 
his  rest  shall  be  o:lorious." — Ver.  II.  "  And  it  shall 
come  to  pass  in  that  day,  that  the  Lord  shall  set  his 
hand  again  the  second  time,  to  recover  the  remnant  of 
his  people." — Ver  1 2th.  "  And  he  shall  set  up  an  en- 
sign for  the  nations,  and  shall  assemble  the  outcasts 
of  Israel^  and  gather  together  the  dispersed  of  Judah^ 
from  the  four  corners  of  the  earth." — Ver.  15th.  "  And 
the  Lord  shall  utterly  destroy  the  tongue  of  the  Egyp- 
tian sea  ;  and  with  his  mighty  wind  shall  he  shake  his 
hand  over  the  river,  and  shall  smite  it  in  the  seven 
streams,  and  make  men  ffo  over  drvshod." — Ver.  16th. 
"  And  there  shall  be  a  highway  for  the  remnant  of  his 
people,  which  shall  be  left  from  Assyria  ;  like  as  it  was 
to  Israel  in  the  day  that  he  came  up  out  of  die  land  of 
Egypt."— Chap.  30.  ver.  26.  "  Moreover  the  light  of 
the  moon  shall  be  as  the  light  of  the  sun,  and  the  light 
bf  the  sun  shall  be  sevenfold,  as  the  light  of  seven  days> 


3a 

in  the  day  that  the  Lord  bindeth  up  the  breach  of  his 
people,  and  healdh  the  stroke  oi  their  wound." 

These  are  the  signs  and  the  ivonders  we  are  to  expect 
to  see  at  the  coming  of  Shiloh,  Have  we  ever  yet  seen  any 
thing  like  them,  either  before,  or  since,  the  birth  of  Jesus? 
You  will  not  dispute,  that  Shiloh  is  spoken  of  by  Isai- 
ah, in  the  11th  chap.  *' a  root  of  Je^^e,"  who  was  the 
father  of  David,  who  was  from  the  seed  of  Judah.^-^ 
Then  we  have  a  very  different  description  of  him  here<, 
to  what  we  had  in  the  53d  chap.  :  so  that,  if  Isaiah 
speaks  of  Shiloh,  in  that  chapter,  he  must  either  have 
forgotten,  ,^w\rdt  he  had  before  written  in  this,  or  else  he 
must  speak  of  another  Shiloh  ;  which,  I  think,  will  not 
be  contended.— But,  should  it  be  so,  it  is  hard  that  the 
Jews  should  be  punished  for  being  satisfied  with  the  one 
first  promised  them,  with  whom  they  were  to  be  bless- 
ed above  all  the  nations  of  the  earth,  and  whose  coming 
they  could  not  possibly  mistake  ;  and  for  rejecting  the 
other,  for  whom  they  had  no  occasion  ;  and  who,  you 
say,  was  to  be  "  despised  of  men,  and  stricken  and  smit^ 
smitten  of  God,  and  afflicted,"  and  moreover,  "  without 
form  or  comeliness,"  and  whose  "  visage  was  so  mar- 
red more  than  any  man's,"  and  who,  instead  o( gather- 
ing  them  together  from  the  four  corners  of  the  earth, 
was  to  disperse  them,  and  to  take  away  the  sceptre  and 
lawgiver,  and  destroy  their  city  and  temple. 

The  Shiloh  promised  here,  a  7'oot  of  Jesse,  is  from 
the  seed  of  Judah  :  and  is  it  not  said,  that  to  him  shall 
the  Gentiles  (or  nations)  seek  ?  that  "  he  shall  judge 
with  righteousness,  and  smite  the  earth  with  the  rod  of 
his  mouth,  and  slay  the  wicked  with  the  breath  of  his 
lips  .^" — Of  course,  then,  Judah  will  have  the  sceptre 
and  laivoriver,  or  this  could  not  be  the  case.     But  you 


39 

tell  us  that  Jacob  and   Daniel^  said    Judah  should  not 
have  them  at  the  coming  of  Shiloh, 

We  are  also  told  here,  "  that  Shiloh  shall  assemble 
the  outcasts  of  Israel^  and  gather  together  the  dispersed 
of  Judah  from  the  four  corners  of  the  earth:"  but  you 
tell  us,  that  Jacob  and  Daniei  say,  "  that  they  shall  be 
dispersed^  and  that  their  city  and  temple  shall  be  c/c- 
stroyed^  at  his  coming." — We  are  also  even  told,  that 
man  will  beat  peace  with  the  wild  beasts  and  reptiles, 
and  that  they  shall  not  hurt,  nor  destroy,  in  all  the  ho- 
ly mountain."  Then  we  must  conclude,  that  men  would 
be  worse  than  wild  beasts  and  reptiles  ;  for  you  make 
Daniel  foretel,  "  that  there  should  not  be  peace  with 
them,  but  war  and  desolation." 

Perhaps  you  will  contend  that  Isaiah,  in  the  2d, 
11th,  and  30th  chapters,  which  I  have  here  given, 
speaks  of  the  second  coming  of  Jesus  Now  Jesus 
says  himself,  that  in  those  days,  we  shall  "  see  the  son 
of  man  coming  in  the  clouds,  with  great  power  and  glo- 
ry." If  Isaiah  was  speaking  of  the  second  coming  of 
Jesus,  he  v/ould  hardly  have  omitted  mentioning,  in 
what  a  wonderful  manner  he  would  descend  from  hea- 
ven.— But,  so  far  is  he  from  telling  us  that  he  would 
descend  at  all  from  heaven,  that  lie  rather  says  that  he 
will  grow  up  from  the  earth  :  for,  what  else  must  he 
mean,  when  he  says,  in  chap.  11.  "  there  shall  come 
forth  a  rod  out  of  the  stem  of  Jesse,  and  a  branch  out  of 
his  roots  ?"  To  be  sure  Isaiah  speaks  figuratively ;  but 
I  think  if  he  had  meant  us  to  understand,  that  Jesus 
would  come  in  the  clouds  from  heaven,  he  would  have 
found  a  figure  better  suited  to  his  purpose :  he  would 
rather  have  used  a  heavenly  figure,  than  an  earthly  one. 

But  pray  tell  rae,  how  we  are  to  reconcile  Jpaiah'^' 


40 

speaking  of  the  second  Messmh^  or,  of  the  second  coming 
of  the  first  Messiah,  before  he  tells  us  anj  thing  about 
the  first  ?  You  will  have  us  to  believe  that  Jesus  is 
spoken  of,  in  verj  plain  t<^rms,  in  the  52d  and  5'^^. 
chapters.  One  would  reasonably  suppose,  that  if  he 
had  wished  to  inform  us  of  two  different  comings  of 
Jesus,  he  would  hdiwe  first  spoken  of  the  firsts  and  after- 
wards of  the  second;  and  not  in  chaps.  2, 1 1,  and  30,  tell 
us  of  his  second  comings  and  then,  so  far  afterwards  cis 
chap.  5jJ,  begin  to  speak  of  the  first  coming.  It  is 
quite  unreasonable  and  inconsistent. 

He  must  suppose  himself  to  be  a  very  wise  man,  or 
rather  a  prophet,  that  is  presumptuous  enough  to  re- 
gulate all  the  prophets  ;  and  to  say,  that  this  prophet,  ia 
this  place,  speaks  o{  the  first  coming  of  S/iiloh  ;  and  in 
this  other  place,  and  this  other  prophet,  of  the  second 
coming:  when  thei/  themselves,  in  no  part^  make  use  of 
such  an  expression,  as  either fi7*st  or  second  coming. 

Admitting,  however,  that  such  passages,  as  do  not  ex- 
actly agree  with  your  doctrine  of  the^^r^/ coming  of  Je- 
sus, relate  to  the  second  coming,  you  perceive,  at  any 
rate,  that  the  Jews  are  then  to  be  exalted  above  all  na- 
tions, and  are  to  have  the  sceptre  and  lawgiver."— Th\^  is 
the  very  Redeemer  we  expect  and  seek.  You  say  that 
Jesus,  according  to  Malachi,  was  the  Lord  whom  we 
seek  ;  and  you  call  him  our  expected  Messiah  :  though, 
at  the  same  time,  you  tell  us,  he  was  to  bring  us  nothing 
but  troubles,  war,  captivity,  destruction,  and  desolation  ! 

1  can  hardly  be  brought  to  believe,  that  the  Jews 
would  be  over  anxious  in  their  expectations,  or  very 
eager  in  their  search  of  sucli  blessings  :  nor,  can  1  possi- 
bly conceive,  what  reason  there  was  for  a  Redeemer^ 
to  bring  us  them.     We  might  just  as  well  have  had 


41 

those    troubles   without  one.     And,   indeed,   I  should 
think,  thej  would  rather  lose,  than  seek  such  a  Redeemer. 

^-ind,  lastly — If  these  same  passages  relate  to  the 
comino*  of  our  expected  Redeemer,  what  becomes  of  your 
predictions  from  Jacob  and  Daniel  ? 

You  will  not  pretend  to  argue,  that  the  blessings 
promised  to  the  Jews,  in  these  passages,  were  only 
conditional,  and,  that  they  were  only  to  have  them,  if 
they  would  not  reject  Jesus  :  for  you  tell  us  yourself, 
that  Isaiah,  in  chap.  53,  positively  foretels  that  they 
shall  reject  him ;  and,  consequently,  it  must  have  been 
known  to  him. 

I  will  now  show  you,  what  Ezekiel  says  on  the  sub- 
ject. Chap  39,  verse  22.  "  So  the  --House  of  Israel 
shall  know  that  I  am  the  Lord  their  God  from  that  day 
and  forward."— Ver.  23d.  "  And  the  heathen  shall 
know  that  the  House  of  Israel  went  into  captivity  for 
their  iniquity  :  because  they  trespassed  against  me,  there^ 
fore  hid  I  my  face  from  them,  and  gave  them  into  tlie 
hands  of  their  enemies." — Ver.  25.  "  Now  will  I  bring 
again  the  captivity  of  Jacob,  and  have  mercy  upon  the 
ivhole  House  of  Israel:'— Vev.  28.  "  Then  shall  they 
know  that  I  am  the  Lord  their  God,  which  caused  them 
to  be  led  into  captivity  among  the  heathen  ;  but  I  have 
gathered  them  unto  their  own  land,  and  have  left  none 
of  them  any  more  there." — Ver.  29.  "  Neither  will  I 
hide  my  face  a72y  more  from  them." 

Here,  you  see,  it  is  promised,  that  we  shall  be  gather- 
ed di^dAii  to  our  oivn  land  ;  and,  consequently,  if  to  our 
own  land,  we  shall  have  our  own  sceptre  and  lawgiver, — 
And,  we  are  further  promised,  that  God  will  not 
"  hide  his  face  any  more  from  us."  You  see  now,  how 
you  make  the  prophets  contradict  one  another.     I  d^U 


42 

you  to  reconcile  wliat  I  have  here  shown  you,  irom 
Isoinh  and  Ezekiel,  with  the  construction  you  put  upon 
Jacob  and  DanieU  and  the  5 2d  and  53d  chaps,  of  Isaiah  : 
and,  you  must  either  admit,  that  the  prophets  contradict 
each  other,  or  else,  that  your  construction  is  false  and  er- 
roneous.— 1  could  also  refer  you  to  other  passages,  from 
the  same,  and  other  prophets,  equally  strong ;  but,  I 
think,  these  will  be  sufficient  for  you 
You  endeavour  to  prove,  that, 

"  It  cannot  be,  as  the  Jews  suppose,  that  the  coming  of  the  Mes^ 
siah  is  delayed  on  account  of  their  sins." — You  saj,  that  "  the  Jew- 
ish commentator:*  in  the  Talmud  and  Medrash,  agree,  that  Isaiah, 
in  chaps.  lii.  and  liii.  speaks  of  the  Messiah  :  and  contend,  that  he 
is  there  said,  "fo  have  been  wounded  for  our  transgressions,  to  hav§ 
been  bruised  for  our  iniquities,  and  to  have  been  stricken  for  the  trans- 
gressions, of  IsaiaKs  people.''' — And,  further,  ^' that  as  the  Lord  laid 
on  him  the  iniquities  of  w.s  all,  and  made  his  soul  an  offering  for  sin, 
and  that  as  he  himself  is  said  to  justify  many'' — you  contend,  I  say, 
that  *'  if  such  were  to  be  the  object  of  the  iViessiah's  advent — if  he 
were  to  come  because  iniquity  abouniled,  it  is  a  palpable  contradic- 
tion, to  sHy  that  the  abounding  of  that  very  iniquity  should  delay 
his  coming." 

I  am  glad  to  see,  that  you  now  acknowledge  what  1 
have  before  observed,  that  the  Jews  are  meant  by 
Isaiah's  people  ;  and,  consequently,  that,  for  the  Jews 
only.,  the  Messiah  (of  whom,  you  say,  Isaiah  speaks,  and 
who  you  insist  to  be  Jesus,)  will  be  sacrificed  ;  and  that, 
by  his  stripes,  they  should  be  healed^  and  their  sins  for- 
given.— And  yet,  you  believe,  that  they  were  punished 
for  sacrificinor  him ;  which  is  most  unaccountable  and 
most  inconsistent. 

Jind.,  again. — According  to  your  construction  of 
Isaiah,  the  Jews  were  to  expect  to  be  healedy  and  to  be 
forgiven  their  sins,  only  by  the  bruising,  and  wounding, 
and  sacrificing  of  the  Messiah  there  mentioned  :  and, 


43 

consequently,  that,  if  Jesus  (who  you  insist  was  the 
Messiah)  had  not  been  bruised^  wounded^  and  sacrificed^ 
they  could  tiot  be  healed^  or  he  forgiven  their  sins. — And 
yet,  you  most  inconsistently  believe,  that  they  are  pun- 
ished for  having  sacrificed  him. — Pray^  then,  can  you  in- 
form us,  in  what  manner  they  were  to  be  healed^  or  to 
ohidJm  for givenef^s  of  their  sins,  by  that  Messiah  at  his 
coming.^  For,  if  they  had  not  sacrificed  him,  they 
would  not  have  been  healed  diud.  forgiven  their  sins,  but 
would  have  been  punished  for  them. — And,  as  they  have 
sacrificed  him,  if,  by  it,  they  are  healed  of  their  former 
sins,  you  believe  they  committed  a  new  sin  by  so  domg, 
and  are  punished  for  it ! — Then,  what  would  you  have 
advised  them  to  do,  to  avoid  punishment^  and  to  obtain 
forgiveness  of  their  sins,  which,  you  say,  is  promised  by 
Ipaiah  at  the  coming  of  Jesus  ? 

jlgain. — You  see  by  Ezekiel,  chap.  xxix.  ver.  23d 
which  has  been  before  spoken  of,  that  the  sins  of  the 
Jews  were  the  cause  of  their  captivity :  and  we  cannot 
reasonably  suppose,  that  they  should  be  redeemed  from 
that  captivity,  till  the  cause  of  it  should  be  removed. 

Although  you  do  not  seem  to  understand  the  real 
meanino-  of  what  you  cite  from  the  Talmud  and  Me- 
DRASH,  yet,  it  seems,  you  do  believe  in  them,  else  you 
would  not  have  quoted  them  to  prove  that  the  person 
spoken  of  by  Isaiah,  in  his  52d  and  53d  chaps,  is  the 
promised  Messiah.- -Then,  as  you  do  believe  in  them, 
1  refer  you  to  the  Talmud,  [Senhedrin  p^'h  p^q)  where 
you  will  find,  that  Joshua,  the  son  of  Levi,  did  ask  the 
Messiah,  when  he  would  come;  and  that  he  was  an- 
swered, "  to-day ;"  which  is  explained  to  signify  any 
day,  even  to-day,  if  the  Jews  be  prepared  for  it  by  pe- 
nitence, and  will  hearken  to  the  voice  of  God. — There- 


44 

fore,  it  is  evident,  from  the  Talmud,  that  the  coming 
of  the  Messiah  is  delayed  by  the  sins  of  the  Jews. 

I  refer  you,  also,  to  the  Medrash,  (na^«  Lamentations) 
and  there  you  wiil  find  a  long  history  of  the  Messiah  : 
how,  and  when,  and  where,  he  was  born,  and  that  he 
remained  on  earth  about  fourteen  days  o??7^,  and  how 
he  was  taken  to  heaven  alive  in  a  whirlwind ;  which 
will  quite  astonish  you,  and  do  away  with  all  your  ar- 
guments at  once. 

In  the  next  place  you  observe, 

**  The  Jews  sometimes  object  to  the  Messiahship  ofJeauPj 
on  the  ground  that  the  law  of  Moses  was  to  be  of  perpe- 
tual duration,  inasmuch  as  it  proceeded  from  God  :  w  hereas  Jesus 
fias  abrogated  it,  and  has  set  his  disciples  free  from  all  obedience 
to  it,  so  far  as  the  ceremonial  part  of  it  is  concerned. — This,  they 
think,  cannot  be  done  without  impiety."  You  argue,  that,  "  had 
the  ritual  observance  been  of  perpetual  obligation,  they  would 
have  been  so  framed  that  all  nations  might  be  subject  to  them.'' 
Tou  then  proceed  to  state,  that  "  the  Mosaical  law  commands  all 
its  votaries  to  repair  to  Jerusalem  three  times  in  the  year;  conse- 
quently,  if  this  law  was  of  perpetual  obligation,  then  all  nations, 
in  the  times  of  the  Messiah,  must  repair  three  times  in  the  year  to 
Jerusalem. — But  this  would  be  plainly  impossible. — Therefore, 
the  ordinance  in  question  cannot  be  of  perpetual  obligation  ;  be- 
cause, God  would  not  command  impossibilities,''^ 

In  answer  to  this,  I  refer  you  to  Zechariah,  chap.  xiv. 
beginning  at  ver.  16 — "  And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  that 
every  one  that  is  left  of  all  the  nations  which  came  against 
Jerusalem,  shall  even  go  up,  from  year  to  year,  to  wor- 
ship the  king,  the  lord  of  hosts,  and  to  keep  the  feast 
of  tabernacles." — 17.  "Audit  shall  be,  that  whoso 
will  not  come  up  of  all  the  families  of  the  earth  unto  Jeru- 
salem^ to  worship  the  king,  the  lord  of  hosts,  even  upon 
them  shall  be  no  rain." — 18.  "  And  if  the  family  of 
Egypt  go  not  up,  and  come  not,  that  have  no  rain, 


45 

there  shall  be  the  plague,  wherewith  the  Lord  shall 
smite  the  heathen,  that  come  not  up  to  keep  the  feast 
of  the  tabernacle.'' — 19.  "  This  shall  be  the  punish- 
ment of  Egypt,  and  the  punlslnnent  of  all  nations  that 
come  not  up  to  keep  the  feast  of  tabernacles." 

Here  you  see,  what  you  ha,ve  foretold,  is  a  contradic-^ 
tion  to  the  prophecy  o[  Zechariah  ;  and  that  which  you 
call  an  iinpossibility,  is  not  o\i\y  possible  to  God,  but  ab- 
solutely commanded  by  him.  hi  these  days,  which  we 
have  never  yet  seen,  but  excpect  to  see,  all  the  families  of 
the  earth  must  go  up  to  Jerusalem,  to  keep  the  feast  of 
tabernacles. 

Again. — You  say,  that  "  Jesus  has  abrogated  the  law 
of  Moses,  and  has  set  his  disciples  free  from  the  ob- 
servance of  it,  so  far  as  the  ceremonial  part  of  it  is  con- 
cerned."— Now,  you  make  Jesus  contradict  himself; 
for,  he  says,  that  he  did  not  come  to  destroy  the  law  of 
Moses,  but  to  strengthen  it. — And,  we  find,  that  he  con- 
formed most  strictly  to  the  Mosaic  law,  and  observed 
all  the  ceremonies  enjoined  by  it,  with  only  a  few  ex- 
ceptions, (for  ivhich,  it  appears,  he  was  condemned)  and 
that  he  strictly  kept  the  sabbath,  and  only  excused  his 
disciples  for  plucking  the  ears  of  corn  on  that  day, 
on  account  of  hunger  ;  and  that  he  also  observed  the 
holy  days,  the  feast  of  tabernacles  and  passover  ; 
and  that  he  ate  unleavened  bread,  and  abstained  from 
forbidden  meats. — Nor  do  we  any  wtiere  find,  that  he 
gave  authority  for  others  to  do  otherwise. —■i  am,  there- 
fore, very  desirous  of  knowing,  upon  what  authority  yo\i 
act  otherwise.  We  are  not  told,  that  Jasus  had  ever  a 
vision  of  unclean  beasts  ;  though,  one  would  imagine, 
that  it  would  rather  ha^e  come  to  him,  than  to  Peter, 
It  seems  that  Peter  did  not  like  to  be  prevented  s^iiAsiy-' 


46 

mg  his  appetite,  for  what  was  deemed  unclean  by  the 
Mosaic  law  ;  and,  therefore,  had  recourse  to  the  fa- 
mous vision  It  must  be  observed,  though,  that  he  took 
care  not  to  see  this  vision  during  the  Hfe  of  Jesus,  lest 
he  should  be  reproved  by  him  :  for  he  knew  that  Jesus 
would  not  permit  his  followers  to  break  the  law  of  the 
whole  nation^  which,  he  had  himself  said,  "  he  came  to 
strengthen,'^'  for  the  sake  of  an  individuaVs  dream  :  espe- 
cially, when  he  had  cause  to  suspect,  that  the  vision 
knew  that  Peter  was  fond  of  unclean  beasts,  before  it  ap- 
peared to  him  : — for  one  would  suppose,  that  Peter  had 
shown  a  partiality  for  forbidden  meats,  even  in  the  life- 
time of  Jesus  ;  for,  in  Mark,  chap.  viii.  ver.  33,  Jesus  is 
made  to  say  to  him,  "  get  thee  behind  me,  Satan,  for 
thou  favourest  not  the  things  of  God,  but  the  things 
that  be  of  men." — It  would  seem,  that  in  this  particular- 
people  of  similar  tastes  to  Peter,  are  more  inclined  to 
believe  in  Peter  than  in  Jesus  :  w^hich  appears  some- 
what surprising,  when  they  recollect,  that  Peter  was 
not  the  strictest  observer  of  truth. 

Again. — You  will  observe,  by  this  same  law,  which 
Jesus  came  to  strengthen,  he  was  liable  to  suffer  death. 
— Deuter.  chap.  xiii.  ver.  1.  "  If  there  arise  among  you 
a  prophet  or  a  dreamer  of  dreams,  and  giveth  thee  a 
sign  or  a  wonder  ; — 2.  And  the  sign  or  the  wonder 
come  to  pass,  whereof  he  spake  unto  thee,  saying,  let 
us  go  after  other  gods,  which  thou  hast  not  known,  and 
let  us  serve  them,— 3,  Thou  shalt  not  hearken  to  the 
words  of  that  prophet  or  dreamer  of  dreams  : — 4.  And 
that  prophet,  or  that  dreamer  of  dreams,  shall  be  put  to 
death."  But,  as  you  tell  us,  that  at  the  coming  o{  Shi- 
loh  (whom  you  believe  to  be  Jesus)  the  sceptre  and  law- 
giver departed  from  Judah,  Jesus  could  not  have  been 


47 

condemned  to  death,  by  the  laws  of  the  Jeivs^  if  they  had 
no  laws  at  that  time  :  and,  therefore,  we  must  conclude, 
that  the  Roman  law  accorded  with  the  Mosaic,  and  that 
ke  was  condemned  to  death  by  the  Roman  law. 

According  to  Mark,  chap.  xiii.  ver.  21,  Jesus  says, 
**  Ifany  man  shall  say  to  you,  lo,  here  is  Christ,  or  lo, 
he  is  there,  beheve  him  not. — 22.  For  false  Christs  and 
false  prophets  shall  rise,  and  shall  shew  signs  and  won- 
ders to  seduce,  if  it  were  possible,  even  the  elect." 

Here  you  see,  Jesus  himself  admits,  that  even  false 
prophets  may  perform  wonders^  that  would,  if  it  were 
possible,  deceive  even  the  elect.  Then  what  greater 
reasons  could  the  Jews  have,  to  believe  him  to  be  the 
promised  Messiah,  rather  than  those  who  could  perform 
similar  wonders  to  himself.^  Therefore,  if  the  Roman 
law  agreed  witJi  the  Mosaic  law,  as  before  observed, 
Jesus  was  liable  to  suffer  death,  from  his  own  words, 
viz.  not  to  believe  a  man  who  even  performs  great  mi- 
racles ;  and  as  Jesus  knew  the  law,  he  prophecied  that 
he  should  be  condemned  to  death. 

St.  Mark,  chap.  xiii.  ver.  3]st.  makes  him  to  say, 
that  "  the  son  of  man  must  suffer  many  things,  and  be 
rejected  of  the  elders,  and  chief  priests  and  scribes,  and 
be  killed." — Then  if  Jesus  was  a  God,  it  was  by  his 
own  command  tiiat  he  was  put  to  death ;  and  the  free 
choice  and  free  will  of  all  people,  was  absolutely  taken 
away.  And  yet  the  Jews  you  say,  are  punished,  when 
it  was  not  by  their  law  that  he  was  condemned  ;  or, 
even  if  it  were,  when  it  was  by  his  own  command. 

You  further  observe,  that 

"  11k(1  the  Mosuic  i-tw  b  en  of  eternal  obligation,  a  new  and 
better  covenant  wou  •{  cfrtain'y  not  have  b«  en  promised.  But 
this  was  most  positively  asst^rted  by  Jeremiah,  chap.  xxxi.  verses 


48 

31,  32,  33,— Behold  the  dn.ys  shal!  come,  snith  the  Lord,  that  I 
will  make  a  new  covenant  with  the  Hou^e  of  Israel,  ana  with  the 
House  of  Judah  :  not  according  to  the  covenant  vhat  I  made  with 
their  lathers,  in  the  d&y  that  I  took  them  by  the  hand,  to  bring 
them  out  ol'  the  Ic^.nd  of  Egypt ;  a  h'ch  :r>y  covenant  ihey  broke, 
although  I  was  an  husband  unto  ihcn:,  s-ith  the  Lord.^Dut  this 
shall  be  the  covenant  that  I  will  make  with  the  House  of  Israel, 
after  those  d;iys,  saith  the  Lord — i  will  put  my  laws  in  their  in- 
ward parts,  and  write  it  in  their  hearts,  and  will  be  their  God,  and 
they  shall  be  my  people." 

From  this  jou  argue, 

"  That  a  new  covenant  is  both  promised  and  described  :  that 
it  was  not  to  be  a  covenant  of  rites  and  ceremonies,  but  a  cove- 
nant purely  spiritual/' 

1  am  somewhat  surprised,  that  you  should  have  no- 
ticed the  chapter  of  Jeremiah,  from  which  the  above 
is  extracted  ;  for,  from  beginning  to  end,  it  is  quite 
against  your  arguments,  and  is  the  very  chapter  I 
should  have  brought  forward  in  support  of  my  own. 
In  that  chap.  ver.  7.  Jeremiah  says,  "  Sing  with  glad- 
ness for  Jacob,  and  shout  among  the  chief  of  the  na- 
tions :  publish  ye,  praise  ye,  and  say,  O  Lord,  save  thy 
people,  the  remnant  of  Israel. — 8.  Behold  1  will  bring 
them  from  the  north  country,  and  gather  them  from 
the  coasts  of  the  earth,  and  with  them  the  blind  and 
the  lame,  the  woman  with  child,  and  her  that  travaileth 
with  child  together:  a  great  company  shall  return 
thither. — 9.  They  shall  ccme  with  weeping,  and  with 
supplications  will  I  lead  them  :  I  will  cause  them  to 
walk  by  the  rivers  of  waters  in  a  straight  way,  wherein 
they  shall  not  stumble  :  for  I  am  a  father  to  Israel,  and 
Ephfaim  is  my  fiist-born. — 10.  He  that  scattereth 
Israel,  will  gather  him,  and  keep  him,  as  a  shepherd 
doth  his  flock. —  il.  For  the  Lord  hath  redeemed  Ja- 
cob, and  ransomed  him  from  the  hand  of  him  that  was 


49 

stronger  than  he. — 12.  Therefore  they  shall  come  and 
sing  in  the  height  of  Zion ;  and  they  shall  not  sorrow 
any  more  at  all — 38.  Behold  the  days  come,  saith  the 
Lord,  that  the  city  shall  be  built  to  the  Lord,  &;c.— 
40.  It  shall  not  be  plucked  up  nor  thrown  down  any 
more  for  ever,'''' 

Have  these  promises,  which  we  are  to  expect  at  the 
coming  of  our  Redeemer,  been  yet  fulfilled  at  the  com- 
ing of  Jesus,  or  since  his  birth  ?  according  to  what  you 
say  other  prophets  predicted,  we  have  seen  very  differ- 
ent times  to  these  here  foretold  by  Jeremiah. — Now^ 
as  Jeremiah  does  not  speak  of  the  new  covenant  till  after 
his  prediction  of  the  redemption  of  the  Jews,  after  they 
are  promised  "  to  be  gathered  together  from  the 
coasts  of  the  earth,  and  not  to  sorrow  any  more  at  all," 
' — we  must  naturally  infer,  that  they  are  not  to  have 
this  new  covenant  till  after  their  redemption  :  and  then, 
as  Jeremiah  says,  when  speaking  of  this  new  covenant, 
''  I  will  be  their  God,  and  they  shall  be  my  people." — » 
You  will  bear  in  mind,  that  the  Jews  are  always  spok- 
en of,  in  these  prophecies  ;  for,  it  appears,  that  you  for- 
get this  sometimes,  and  seem  to  think  that  the  promis- 
es are  made  to  believers  in  Jesus. — You  look  upon  the 
J\'ew  Testament  to  be  the  new  covenant :  but,  it  does 
not  appear,  that  that  was  given  to  the  Jews^  or  that  it 
is  ivrittcnin  their  hearts  :  had  it  been  so,  it  would  have 
been  out  of  their  power  to  reject  it.-— But,  on  the  con- 
trary, not  being  able  to  discover,  that  what  w^s  pro- 
mised to  them  before  they  were  to  have  this  new  cove- 
nant, has  been  fulfilled;  and,  consequently,  not  consi- 
dering it  to  be  the  new  covenant  alluded  to^  they  have 
rejected  it  altogether. 

You  have  said  before,  that,  if  the  Mosaic  law  was  of 
G 


30 

perpetual  obligation,  all  nations  would  be  subject  to  h* 
You  consequently  admit,^  that  the  law  of  Moses  was 
given  to  all  nations  (and  not  to  the  Jews  only),  until 
there  should  be  a  new  law.  You  cannot  but  admit,  that 
the  new  covenant  above  mentioned  (which  you  con- 
sider to  be  the  new  law)  is  promised  only  to  the  Jews  ; 
for  the  express  words  of  Jeremiah  are,  "  Behold  the 
days  come,  that  I  will  make  a  new  covenant  with  the 
House  of  Israel  and  with  the  Home  of  Judah^ — And 
further,  that  it  was  not  promised,  even  to  them  until 
their  redemption — until  they  should  he  gathered  together^ 
and  sorrow  no  more.  You  find,  also,  that  Jesus  said, 
that  he  did  not  come  to  destroy  the  law  of  Moses .^  but  to 
fulfil  it. — Then,  if  the  law  of  Moses  was  given  to  all 
nations,  until  there  should  be  a  new  law  ;  and  if  the 
7iew  covenant  spoken  of  by  Jeremiah  (which  you  con- 
sider to  be  the  7ieiv  law,)  was  promised  only  to  the  Jews^ 
and  not  to  them  even,  until  a  certain  time,  which  has 
not  yet  arrived,  or  until  the  consummation  of  certain 
events,  which  have  not  yet  happened  : — and,  if  Jesus 
himself  (whom  you  believe  to  be  a  God)  came  io  fulfil 
the  Mosaic  law: — I  ask,  upon  what  authority  you 
break  the  Mosaic  law  ?  and  upon  what  authority  you 
believe,  that  this  new  law  was  given  only  to  the  Gentiles, 
when  Jeremiah  said,  it  was  given  only  to  the  Jews  ? 

Jlgain. — According  to  your  construction  of  Jeremi- 
ah, a  new  covenant  is  promised  to  the  Gentiles,  at  the 
coming  of  Jesus.  Though  I  have  so  clearly  proved 
the  contrary,  yet,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  let  it  now 
be  admitted. — But  you  are  not  satisfied,  with  thus  far 
outstripping  the  bounds  of  common  reason,  but  you 
will  make  us  believe,  that  a  new  covenant  is  a  new  late. 
If  your  construction  were  right,  Jeremiah  would  con- 


51 

tradict  Malaclii  ;  for  he  says,  chap  iii.  ver.  C,  "  I  am 
the  Lord;  I  change  not  :"  and  in  chap.  iv.  ver.  4,  (af- 
ter speaking  of  times  which  have  not  yet  come  to  pass) 
he  further  says,  "  Remember  ye  the  law  of  Moses^  my 
servant,  which  I  commanded  unto  him  in  Horeb,  for 
all  Israel,  with  the  statutes  and  judgments." — If,  in  the 
times  Malachi  speaks  of,  God  commands  the  Jews  to 
remember  the  law  of  Moses^  either  Malachi  or  Jeremi- 
ah must  be  a  false  prophet ;  for  you  make  Jeremiah 
say,  that  in  those  times  there  shall  be  a  new  law. 

You  are  either  ignorant,  or  wish  to  make  others  so, 
that  Jeremiah  only  speaks  of  a  new  covenant  about  an 
old  law.  The  passage  speaks  for  itself,  and  tells  iis 
what  this  covenant  is,  viz.  ver.  33,  "  This  shall  be  the 
covenant  that  1  will  make  with  the  House  of  Israel  after 
those  days^  saith  the  Lord,  I  will  put  my  law  in  their  in- 
ward parts,  and  will  write  it  in  their  hearts.  The  cove- 
nant,  or  as  it  is  called  before,  the  new  covenant^  is  not  to 
be  written  in  their  hearts ;  but  God  will  make  a  new 
covenant  to  write  the  old  law  in  their  hearts. 

Now  we  come  to  the  point. —  What  laiv,  I  ask  you? 
is  any  thing  said  of  a  new  law  ?  Not  a  word  !  Then 
what  law  can  be  meant  .^^  Must  we  not  conclude,  that 
Jeremiah  means  the  law  which  himself  and  the  other 
prophets  have  so  often  mentioned  ? — the  old  law — the 
Mosaic  law— the  law  which  was  observed  in  their  own 
times  ?  But  there  is  no  need  of  surmises. — I  will  show 
you,  beyond  contradiction,  that  the  old  law  of  Mo- 
ses, and  no  other  law,  is  here  meant. — The  pas- 
sage from  Jeremiah  (v.  33)  given  before  is  erronc- 
omly  translated^  and  the  meaning  thereof  flagrant- 
ly perverted.  If  you  have  not  forgot  your  Hebrew,  you 
need  only  refer  to  this  passage  in  your  Hebrew  bible, 


to  be  convinced  of  the  truth  of  what  1  say. — Lest,  how- 
ever, this  should  be  the  case,  I  will  take  the  trouble  of 
pointing  out  to  you  the  error  I  allude  to.  The  verb 
''J^nj  (notati^^  there  used,  is  in  the  past  tense,  and  signi- 
fies "  I  did  give,''^  The  real  translation  is  thus,  "  Mfter 
those  days^  the  law  which  I  did  give  them  before,  1  will 
WRITE  IN  their  HEARTS."  In  the  place  of  the  words 
in  the  original,  "  the  law  which  I  gave  them  before^'^'^  the 
English  translation  has  "  /  will  put  my  law  in  their  in- 
ward parts  ;"  and  there  is  no  such  expression  there. 
The  word  oanpj  (bekirbom^  does  not  signify  "  in  their  in- 
ward parts^^''  but  "  amongst  theni.^'^ — The  passage  can- 
not possibly  be  turned  or  twisted  any  way,  to  signify 
more  or  less  than  this,  "  After  those  days,"  (viz.  after 
the  days  there  predicted,  and  which  we  have  not  yet 
seen,)  "  the  law  which  I  did  give  them  btfore^'^  (viz.  in 
times  now  past)  "  I  will  write  in  their  hearts." — So 
that  it  appears,  that  in  former  times,  the  law  which  was 
given  to  them,  was  not  written  in  their  hearts,  and  they 
were  liable  to  break  it  ;  but  then^  God  promises  to  make 
a  new  covenant  with  them,  and  to  write  the  same  law  in 
their  hearts,  and  make  it  durable  and  lasting. 

You  next 

*'  Call  the  attention  of  the  Jews  to  (what  you  call)  a  very  re- 
markable, and,  so  far  as  they  are  concerned,  a  very  awful  prophe- 
cy of  Hosea. 

"  Chap.  iii.  ver.  4th  and  5th — "  The  children  of  Israel  shall  a- 
bide  many  days  without  a  prince,  and  without  a  sacrifice,  and  with- 
out an  image,  and  without  an  ephod,  and  without  teraphim  :  af- 
terwards shull  the  children  of  Israel  return  and  seek  the  Lord 
their  God,  and  David  their  king,  and  shall  fear  the  Lord  and  his 
goodness  in  the  latter  days." 

From  this  you  argue,  that 

"  If  the  Jews  are  at  length  to  return  and  seek  Jehovah  their 
God,  it  necessarily  follows,  that  during  their  whole  continuance 


53 

in  the  state  described  by  Hosea,  they  are  living  without  Jchovnh  j 
otherwise,  if  they  had  been  living  in  communion  with  him,  they 
could  not  be  said  to  return  and  seek  him  ;  for,  we  can  on!y  return 
to  what  we  have  left — we  can  only  seek  what  we  have  lost,  l^ut» 
they  are  not  only  to  retura  and  seek  Jehovah  their  God,  but  like- 
wise Davivl  their  king.  Tiiis  being  the  case,  if  1  hey  are  to  return 
and  seek  the  Messiah  whom  they  have  lelt,  they  must  seek  some 
Messiah  whom  they  have  lost.  The  Messiah,  therefore,  here 
spoken  of  by  Rosea,  cannot  be  a  Messiah  who  shall  then,  for  the 
first  time,  manifest  himself;  but  must  be  a  Messiah  wiio  had  lon-^ 
since  come  ;  whom  the  Jews  had  originally  denied  and  rejected, 
and  to  whom  they  are  at  length  to  return  :  for,  as  before  observed, 
they  cannot  return  to  a  person  whom  they  never  rejected.  Dou- 
bly awful,  therefore,  is  the  condition  of  the  Jews  ;  according  to 
the  prophecy  of  Hosea,  they  are  living,  w^ithout  Jehovah  flieir 
God,  and  they  have  denied  the  mystical  David  their  king." 

You  observe,  that  we  can  only  return  to  what  we 
have  left^  and  seek  what  we  have  lost  ;  and  therefore 
contend,  from  the  above  prophecy,  that  the  Jews  have 
lost  their  God^  and  are  living  ivithout  him,  and  tliat  they 
will  seek  him  hereafter. — I  wonder  you  should  suffer 
sech  a  shameful  expression  to  appear  in  print ;  and 
more,  that  you  should  take  such  great  pains,  to  deco- 
rate so  weak  and  feeble  an  argument. — It  is  something 
like  a  man  building  a  large  house  for  himself,  of  rotten 
wood,  and  painting  it  on  the  outside,  to  deceive  peo- 
ple's eyes  in  regard  to  the  strength  and  stability  of  it ; 
and  behold  a  little  wind  arises,  and  throws  it  down  in  a 
moment.— If  "  rc/z/77i"  be  only  applied  to  what  has  been 
left,  and  '•  seck^^  to  what  has  been  lost,  the  passage  that 
"  the  children  of  Israel  will  return  and  seek  the  Lord 
their  God,  and  David  their  king,"  can  only  mean,  that 
after  having  sought  him  before,  and  left  it  off,  they  will 
return  and  seek  him  again.  So  that  it  appears,  that  vou 
suppose  God  has  been  twice  lost,  and  required  tivice  to 
be  sought. — But,  Indeed,  if  we  are  to  apply  these  words 


54 

of  Hosea,  about  seeking  and  findings  to  Jesus,  we  are 
told,  that  the  Jews  did  seek  him,  and  by  candlelight  too, 
and  also  that  ihey  found  him. — (Though  I  cannot  help 
remarking  here,  how  unaccountable  it  appears  to  me, 
that,  when  J  esus  was  so  well  known  to  the  people  in 
Jerusalem,  "  amongst  whom  he  daily  preached  and 
disputed  in  their  temple,"  and  to  whom,  the  great  mi- 
racles he  performed,  must  have  rendered  him  particu- 
larly notorious, — I  say,  it  appears  rather  unaccountable 
to  me,  that  the  Jews  should  have  been  under  the  ne- 
cessity of  bribing  one  of  his  own  apostles,  not  only  to 
inform  them  where  he  was,  but  also  to  identify  him.) — 
But,  if  the  w^ords  seeking  diud  finding  can  be  applied  to 
Jesus,  they  surely  cannot  be  applied  to  God  :  for,  do 
you  suppose,  that  God  is  lost,  or  in  some  corner,  and  that 
it  is  necessary  to  seek  him  by  candle  light  ?  Pray  how,  or 
ivhere,  or  tvhen,  are  we  to  seek  for  him  ?  or,  to  whoui  are 
we  to  apply  for  information  where  he  is  to  be  found  ? 
Is  not  God  omnipresent  and  eternal  ?  Is  he  not  always 
every  where  ?  and  is  it  possible  to  live,  even  a  moment 
without  his  support  and  assistance  ? — If  we  can  only  he 
said  to  seek  what  we  have  lost,  from  what  is  said  in 
Zechariah  xii.  ver.  9,  "  I  will  seek  to  destroy  all  the  na- 
tions that  came  against  Jerusalem,"  we  must  suppose, 
that  God  had  also  lost  something,  and  was  obliged  to 
seek  for  it. 

You  have  before  shewn  us  from  Malachi,  chap,  iil 
that  "  the  Lord  v^hom  ye  seek,  even  the  messenger  of 
the  covenant,  shall  suddenly  come,"  &;c. — and  you  say, 
that  Malachi  speaks  of  Jesus  at  his  first  coming. — 
Then,  according  to  your  learned  definition  of  the  word 
seek,  which,  you  observe,  can  only  be  applied  to  what 
is  lost,  either  Jesus  must  have  come  ^c/br^  what  you  call 


95 

his  first  comings  or  else  the  Jews  were  then  seeking  what 
they  had  not  lost: — both  of  which  appear  incompre- 
hensible. 

We  must  also  suppose,  from  what  Isaiah  says,  chap, 
xi.  ver.  9,  "  to  him  (the  Messiah)  shall  the  Gentiles 
seek,'' — that  they  also,  as  well  as  the  Jews,  have  lost 
him. 

But  God  himself  has  even  promised,  that  he  will 
never  be  lost  to  W5,  but  that  he  will  always  be  with  us, 
even  when  we  are  in  captivity,  and  that  he  will  keep 
his  covenant  with  us. — See  Levit.  xxvi.  ver.  44.  "  And 
yet  for  all  that,  when  they  be  in  the  land  of  their  ene- 
mies, I  will  not  cast  them  away."— 45,  "  But  I  will  for 
their  sakes  remember  the  covenant  of  their  ancestors, 
whom  I  brought  forth  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  in  the 
sight  of  the  heathen,  that  I  might  be  their  God." 

The  Hebrew  word  which  signifies  seeking  for  what 
is  lost,  is  a'ls^n  {chipush,)  but  the  word  in  the  passao-e 
you  extract  from  Hosea,  is  ^"'p:5i  (ubikshu,)  which  sig- 
nifies to  beseech  or  entreat,  to  desire  or  request. — There 
can  be  no  other  way  o^  seeking  God,  but  by  penitence 
and  prayers. 

Therefore,  the  signification  of  Ilosea's  prophecy, 
can  be  neither  more  nor  less,  than  that  the  children  of 
Israel,  after  having  abided  many  days  without  a  kina-^ 
and  without  a  sacrifice,  &c.  will  return  from  their  sins, 
and  return  to  iheiv  former  state,  which  they  had  lost,  to 
have  a  king  and  sacrifice,  and  they  will  entreat  tlie  Lord 
with  prayers,  and  the  son  of  David  their  king  :"— (not 
yours,  hut  theirs — and  theirs,  is  only  king,  not  God.) 

I  wonder  how  you  explain  the  concluding'  words  of 
the  last  verse :  viz.  "  and  shall  fear  the  Lord  and  his 
goodness^" — For  my  part,  I   cannot  comprelicnd  the 


^6 

meaning  ot fearing  the  Lord's  goodness :  and  in  the  ori- 
ginal Hebrew  you  will  find  the  word  *?«  (<;/,)  which 
signifies  "  to  ;"  so  that  we  have  it,  "  to  the  Lord  and  to 
his  goodness^^''  which  renders  it  still  more  obscure — "  to 
fear  to  the  Lord,  and  to  his  goodness  /" 

Now  we  come  to  the  last  argument  in  your  first 
pamphlet. 

Zechariah  xii.  ver.  10.  "I  will  pour  upon  the  House  of  David^ 
and  upon  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  the  spirit  of  grace  and  of 
supplications,  and  they  shall  look  u[)on  him  whom  they  have  pierc- 
ed, and  (hey  shall  mourn  for  him  as  one  mourneth  for  his  only 
son,  and  shall  be  in  bitterness  for  hira  as  one  that  is  in  bitterness 
for  his  first  born." 

The  person  here  spoken  of,  you  believe  to  be  Jesus. 

You  have  taken  a  surprising  liberty,  in  the  above  tran- 
script from  Zechariah:  for,  though  the  word  '^^  (alai,^ 
which  any  child  knows  to  be,  "  to  me,"  is  rendered  in 
the  English  version  of  the  Old  Testament,  "  upon  mc," 
you  do  not  think  the  translation  erroneous  enough  to 
suit  your  purpose,  and,  therefore,  alter  it  to  "  upon  htmy 
— I  think  "  me"  ought  to  have  been  consulted,  before 
"  me"  was  changed  for  '^  /i/m."  For  my  part,  I  would 
not  wish  to  change  me  for  him : — but,  it  appears,  you 
are  fond  of  changing.  In  your  pamphlet,  in  Hebrew 
you  show  a  similar  propensity :  for,  in  an  extract  from 
Haggai,  as  before  noticed,  the  word  i-^^^  {iibau^^  which 
is  in  the p/wrc// number,  you  have  changed  to  n^^">  {waiabo^^ 
which  is  singimr, 

<"  However,  we  will  take  the  word  as  It  is  in  the  Eng-* 
lish  translation. 

There  are  here  two  persons  spoken  of-—"  they  shall 
look  upon  me^  and  they  shall  mourn  for  him^ — Now^ 
who  is  this  "  m^,"  and  who  is  this  "  him  .^" — Is  Jesus 
t(j  be  there,  at  the  time  spoken  of,  or  is  he  not  to  be 


4t 


ther6,  and  v)ho  is  the  person  that  speaks  ?  If  Jesus  be 
not  there,  he  cannot  be  the  Messiah  (much  less  God 
himself;)  nor  can  he  be  looked  upon  ^s  the  person  pier- 
ced, if  he  be  not  there,  to  be  looked  upon. — If  he 
be  there,  then  who  is  the  person  that  speaks  ?  If  it  be 
Jesus  himself,  and  he  says  "they  will  look  upon 
me  whom  they  have  pierced  ;"  then  he  also  should 
have  added,  (if  they  were  to  mourn  upon  the  Messiah, 
whom  you  believe  to  be  Jesus,)  "  and  they  will  mourn 
upon  mc," — not  upon  him.—'li  another  speaks^  and 
if  Jesu^  be  "  /i/m,"  on  whom  they  are  to  mourn,  why 
should  they  look  upon  another^  whom  they  did  not 
pierce  ?  And  why,  or  for  what,  are  they  to  look  upon 
the  other^  and  why  not  upon  Jesus  himself? 

1  have  put  questions,  which  you  cannot  possibly  an* 
swer,  so  as  to  correspond  with  your  construction  of  the 
passage  taken  from  the  English  version  of  Zechariah. 

As  you  bring  forward  Zechariah  in  proof  of  what 
you  advance,  you  cannot  object  that  I  should  also  make 
use  of  him  in  answer  to  you. — If  you  will  refer  to  Zech- 
ariah, you  will  find,  that,  both  before  and  after  the  pas- 
sage yOu  extract  from  him,  he  speaks  of  the  redemption 
of  the  Jews  : — that  wonderful  events,  which  we 
have  not  ^et  seen  (but  which  we  expect  to  see^  at  the 
coming  of  our  Messiah,)  are  there  predicted  by  him  ; 
and  that  we  shall  then  have  the  sceptre  and  lawgiver^ 
and  that  Judah  will  be  exalted  : — contrary  to  your  pre- 
dictions from  Jacob  and  Daniel, — In  the  same  chapter  ia 
Zechariah^  from  which  you  have  made  the  above  extract, 
V.  4.  you  will  find  the  follov/ing  : — "  In  tliat  day,  .Saith 
the  Lord,  will  I  smite  every  horse  with  astonishment, 
and  his  rider  with  madness.  I  will  open  mine  eyes 
upon  the  House  of  Judah,  and   will  smite  everv  horse 

H 


o7 

of  the  people  with  bUndness.— 6.  In  that  day,  will  I 
make  the  governors  of  Judah,  like  an  hearth  of  fire 
among  the  wood,  and  like  a  torch  of  fire  in  a  sheaf ; 
and  they  shall  devour  all  the  people  round  about,  on 
the  right  iiand  and  on  the  left :  and  Jerusalem  shall  be 
inhabited  again,  in  her  own  place,  even  in  Jerusalem. — 
9.  In  that  day,  shall  the  Lord  defend  the  inhabitants  of 
Jerusalem :— 9.  And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  in  that  day, 
that  I  will  seek  to  destroy  all  nations  that  come  against 
Jerusalem."— Chap.  viii.  ver.  23.  "  In  those  days  it  shall 
come  to  pass,  that  ten  men  shall  take  hold,  out  of  all 
languages  of  the  nations,  even  shall  take  hold  of  the 
skirt  of  him  that  is  a  Jew,  saying,  v/e  will  go  with  you, 
for  we  have  heard  that  God  is  with  you."— Chap.  xiv. 
ver.  4.  "  And  his  feet  shall  stand  on  that  day  upon  the 
mount  of  ohves,  which  is  before  Jerusalem  on  the  east ; 
and  the  mount  of  olives  shall  cleave  in  the  midst  there- 
of, towards  the  east  and  towards  the  west,  and  there 
shall  be  a  very  great  valley  ;  and  half  of  the  mountain 
shall  remove  towards  the  north,  and  half  of  it  towards 
the  south, — 7.  But  it  shall  be  one  day  which  shall  be 
known  to  the  Lord,  not  day,  nor  night  :  but  it  shall 
come  to  pass,  that  at  evening  time  it  shall  be  light. — 
9.  And  the  Lord  shall  be  king  over  all  the  earth  :  in 
that  day  shall  there  be  one  Lord,  and  his  name  otw  ;" — 
(which  shows  that  in  former  days,  whoever  believed 
on  more  than  one,  was  wrong.) — Ver.  10.  "  All  the  land 
shall  be  turned  as  a  plain  from  Geba  to  Rimmon  south 
of  Jerusalem :  and  shall  be  lifted  up  and  inhabited  in 
her  place,  from  Benjamin's  gate  and  from  the  tower  of 
Ilannaniel,  unto  the  king's  wine  presses.  H.  And  men 
sball  dwell  in  it,  and  there  shall  be  no  more  utter  de- 
struction ;  but  Jerusalem  shall  be  safely  inhabited.-- 


59 

12.  And  this  shall  be  the  plague  wherewith  the  Lord 
will  smite  all  the  people  that  have  fought  against  Jeru- 
salem ;  their  flesh  shall  consume  away  while  they  stand 
upon  their  feet,  and  their  eyes  shall  consume  away  in 
their  holes,  and  their  tongue  shall  consume  away  in 
their  mouth. — 13.  And  it  shall  come  to  pass  in  that  day 
that  a  great  tumult  from^he  Lord  shall  be  among  them, 
and  they  shall  lay  hold  every  one  on  the  hand  of  his 
neighbour,  and  his  hand  shall  rise  against  the  hand  of 
his  neighbour. — 21.  Every  pot  in  Jerusalem  and  in 
Judah  shall  be  of  holiness  unto  the  Lord  of  hosts;  and 
all  they  that  sacrifice  shall  come  and  take  of  them,  and 
seethe  therein  :  and  in  that  day  there  shall  be  no  more 
the  Canaanite  in  the  house  of  the  Lord  of  Hosts." 

Can  you  now  suppose,  that  Zechariah  should  so  Mi- 
]y  contradict  Jacob,  and  much  more  Daniel,  with  whom 
he  was  cotemporary  ? — But,  should  you  say,  that  Ze- 
chariah  speaks  of  a  second  Messiah,  it  must  appear 
somewhat  singular,  that  Daniel  should  choose  to  pro- 
phesy of  the  coming  of  the  first  Messiah,  and  Zecha- 
riah  of  the  second. 

Jesus,  you  contend,  to  be  the  first  Messiah  predicted 
by  Daniel ;  and  as  you  bring  forward  the  passage  from 
Zechariah,  before  observed  upon,  where  it  is  said, 
*•  they  will  look  upon  him  whom  they  have  pierced," 
— you  must  also  contend,  that  Zechariah  speaks  of  the 
same  Messiah,  and  that  Jesus  is  to  make  his  appear- 
ance a  second  time  :  then,  of  course,  Zechariah  must,  at 
the  same  time,  have  foretold,  that  the  Jews  would  pierce 
him,  and,  consequently  reject  him  :  else  he  could  not 
aay,  they  would  pierce  him  — Now,  as  Zechariah  kntio 
that  the  Jews  would  reject  Jesus,  at  his  first  coming, 
how  could  he  be  sure  that  they  would  not  reject  him 


00 

again,  at  his  second  coming  :  for  it  appears  he  was  stir^ 
of  it ;  else  he  would  not  have  predicted  such  blessings 
for  them  :  as,  according  to  your  belief,  such  blessings 
would  not  be  bestowed,  if  thej  should  reject  him.— - 
Therefore,  w^e  must  suppose,  that  Zechariah,  knowing, 
and  foretelling,  that  such  miraculous  events  would  come 
to  pass,  at  his  coming,  that  the  Jews  could  not  possibly 
doubt  of  his  divine  mission,  knew  also,  that  thej  w^ould 
7iot  reject  him. — It  is  strange  then,  and  unaccountable, 
why  Jesus,  described  by  you  as  a  good  and  merciful 
God^  should  not,  at  his  first  coming,  have  had  recourse 
to  the  same  method  of  convincing  the  Jews,  that  he  was 
the  promised  Messiah ;  and,  consequently,  causing  them 
not  to  reject  him,  and  sparing  them  the  punishment^  which 
you  say  they  have  brought  upon  themselves,  by  so 
doins:. 

Perhaps,  you  may  say,  that  they  were  led  to  them- 
selves, and  th^t  God  was  only  trying  them^  if  they 
would  or  would  not  reject  him.  But,  we  no  where 
find,  that  God  has  ever  tried,  that  he  vmj punish;  but? 
on  the  contrary,  always,  that  he  may  reward. — Yet  ad- 
mitting it,  surely  it  is  somewhat  strange  and  inconsist- 
ent, that  the  Jews,  after  having  shown  themselves  too 
weak  for  such  a  trial,  and  after  they  had  not  only  r^- 
jectcd  him,  but  also  most  crueWy  pierced  h'lm,  and  there- 
by (as  you  contend)  brought  upon  themselves  such 
great  punishment,  I  say,  it  is  strange,  that,  at  his  second 
coming,  thct/  should  be  so  exalted  ^.boYe  all  other  nations  .* 
which  nations,  so  far  from  piercing  or  rejecting  him,  had 
received  him,  and  believed  in  him ;  and,  that  those  very 
naiians  should  afterwards  be  debased,  disgraced  m\^  hum- 
bled before  the  Jeu^s,  in  such  a  manner  as  described  in 
chap.  viii.  ver.  23  :   and   that  Jesus    (a  God)  should 


change  his  mind,  and,  at  his  second  cominiy,  exalt  \ho 
Jeivs.  ^iboYe  the  very  nations^  for  which^  at  his  first  com- 
ing, he  shewed  such  affection^  and  for  which  he  even 
sacrificed  himself- — Here  is  a  reward  for  evil^  and  a  pu- 
nishment (or  good  ! 

1  ask,  also,  if  the  Jews,  when  once  tried,  had  failed, 
why  should  they  not  be  tried  again^  at  his  second  com- 
ing ? 

Should  you  profess  to  believe,  that  the  Jews  could 
not  be  redeemed^  unless  Jesus  had  been  previously  sacri- 
ficed by  them  ;  then  why  should  they  he  punished  for  so 
doing,  when,  in  the  first  place,  it  was  so  pre-ordained. 
and  in  the  next,  they  could  not  have  been  redeemed, 
either  before  or  after  ? — And  lastly,  whether  the  Mes- 
siah here  spoken  of  by  Zechariah,  be  Jesus  or  not,  or, 
whether  the  first  or  second  coming  of  a  Messiah  be 
meant,  we  see,  that,  at  his  coming,  the  Jev;s  are  to  have 
the  sceptre  and  lawgiver^  and  are  to  be  exalted  above  all 
nations,  and  are  still  to  retain  the  sacrifice.  Then  what 
becomes  of  your  prediction  from  Jacob  and  DanieU  that 
the  sceptre  and  laivgiver  will  depart,  at  the  coming  of 
Shiloh  ;  and  that  the  sacrifice  shall  cease,  and  that  there 
shall  be  v)ar  and  desolation  ? 

I  have  now  gone  through  all  your  arguments  contain- 
ed in  the  first  pamphlet;  and,  if  you  be  at  all  open  to 
conviction,  you  cannot  but  be  convinced,  that  thcv  arc, 
altogether,  weak  and  without  foundation  ;  and,  that 
your  constructions  of  the  prophecies  you  bring  forward, 
are  completely  erroneous,  and  render  them  contradic- 
tory, and  incompatible  with  all  reason  and  Kptn'mojl 
sense.  ^,   ^ 

Your  next  pamphlet,  which  you  call  Deborah  Vlsracly^ 
m  High  German,  contains  only  one  argument. 


^2 

You  observe, 

*•  That  according  to  (he  Old  Testameut,  (he  Jews  can  only  ob- 
tain forgiveness  of  their  sins,  by  the  shedding  of  (he  blood  of  (he 
sacrifice  :  and  your  ask,  how  can  (he  Jews  now  expect  to  obtain 
for<^iveness  of  their  sins,  v.  hen  they  have  been  without  temple  or 
sacriftce  for  more  than  1  700  years  ?" 

This  pamphlet  in  High  German,  will  be  of  little  use 
to  your  new  cause,  as  the  low  in  Germany  will  not  be 
able  to  understand  it ;  and  the  high  have  higher  sense, 
than  to  be  led  away  by  what  is  there  contained,  as  they 
know  better  what  was  the  use  or  purport  of  the  sacri- 
fice, and  that  their  sins  may  be  forgiven  without  it. — 
Did  not  our  prophet  Samuel  say,  chap.  xv.  ver.  22. 
'•  Hath  the  Lord  as  great  delight  in  burnt  offerings  and 
sacrifices,  as  in  obeying  the  voice  of  the  Lord. — Be- 
hold, to  obey  is  better  than  sacrifice,  and  to  hearken, 
than  the  fat  of  rams." 

Here  you  see,  that  obeying  the  voice  of  th€  Lord,  is 
more  pleasing  to  him  than  burnt  offerings  and  sacri- 
fice.— Was  not  the  loiUingness  of  our  forefather  Abra- 
h,am,  to  sacrifice  his  only  son  Isaac,  more  agreeable  to 
God  than  all  the  sacrifices  in  the  world ;  and  did  he  not 
obtain  from  God,  for  such  his  ready  obedience  to  his 
will,  promises  to  himself  and  his  descendants,  to  the 
latest  generation,  of  greater  rewards  than  ever  n^an 
obtained  before  or  after  him  } — Gen.  chap.  xxii.  ver.  15. 
"  By  myself  have  I  sworn,  saith  the  Lord,  for  because 
thou  hast  done  this  thing,  and  hast  not  withheld  thy 
son,  thine  only  son ; — 17.  That  in  blessing  I  will  bless 
thee,  and  in  multiplying  I  will  multiply  thy  seed  as  the 
stars  of  the  heaven,  and  as  tljfi  sand  u|)on  the  sea  shore, 
and  thy  seed  shall  possess  tiie  gate  of  his  enemies  ; — 
18.  And  in  thy  seed  shall  all  the  nations  of  the  earth 
be  blessed  :  because  thou  hast  obeyed  my  voice." 


63 

I  cannot  help  remarking  here,  that,  if  we  had  been 
told  that  Isaac,  when  he  was  bound  by  his  father 
Abraham,  and  upon  the  very  point  of  being  sacrificed 
by  him,  had  called  out  "-  My  God,  my  God,  why  hast 
thou  forsaken  me  !"  we  should  not  have  been  much  sur- 
prised ;  for  Isaac  was  not  a  God,  and  he  was  truly  in  a 
perilous  situation. — But,  far  from  doing  this,  or  utterino- 
the  least  complaint,  and  far  from  looking  upon  himself 
^s forsaken  by  God,  he  considered  himself  to  be  glori- 
fied by  him,  in  consenting  to  receive  him  for  a  sacrifice. 
— ^And,  it  was  for  this  very  reason,  that  it  was  so  accept- 
able to  God  :  for,  as  Samuel  observes,  he  does  not  want 
sacrifice,  but  the  will  and  the  heart. — The  ivill,  in  this 
case,  was  considered  by  God,  equal  to  the  deed  :  which 
clearly  shows,  X\\dLi  forgiveness  may  be  obtained,  without 
sacrifice  of  beasts. 

Now,  after  this  promise  made  by  God  to  Abraham 
and  his  descendants,  in  consequence  of  his  willingness 
to  sacrifice  Isaac  his  son,  have  not  the  Jeivs  greater  rea- 
son to  expect  forgiveness  of  their  sins,  through  that, 
than  the  Gentiles  have,  through  ihe  sacrifice  oi  Jesus  ? 
for,  you  will  not  find  any  where  in  the  scriptures,  that 
God  makes  to  them  any  promise  like  the  above. — And 
here,  also,  if  the  will  be  equal  to  the  deed,  there  was  a 
greater  sacrifice  than  that  of  J  esus  :  for  we  have  first, 
the  will  of  Abraham  to  sacrifice  his  only  son,  and  then 
the  will  of  Isaac  to  be  sacrificed. 

And  again,  if  the  sacrifice  of  Isaac,  would  liave  been 
more  beneficial  to  the  descendants  of  Abraham,  whv 
did  not  God  permit  it  ? — And  as  he  did  not  permit  it, 
but  was  equally  satisfied  with  the  pure  will,  it  prove- 
what  Samuel  says,  that  "  to  obey  is  better  than  sacrifice.'^' 
— Then,  we  naturally  ask,  why  did  he  syfer  Jesus,  his 


64 

f^wn  only  son^  to  be  ^acrificed^  when  he  spared  Isaac,  the 
only  son  of  Abraham  ?  Was  it  because  he  was  not  so 
convinced  of  the  impHcit  obedience  to  his  command,  as 
he  was  with  regard  to  Isaac  ? 

The  ancient  sacrifice  was  never  supposed  to  be  ac- 
ceptable  to  God,  unless  accompanied  with  a  true  con- 
fession of  sins,  and  sincere  penitence.— It  was  acknow- 
ledged by  the  person  making  the  sacrifice,  that  his  fife 
w^as  justly  forfeited  by  his  sins  ;  and,  he  believed  that 
God,  in  his  great  goodness,  would  accept  the  blood  of 
a  beast,  instead  of  his  own. — Under  this  conviction,  see- 
ing with  his  own  eyes  the  blood  of  an  innocent  creature 
shed  for  him,  he  is  more  deeply  afflicted  with  sorrow 
— his  repentance  then  is  more  sincere,  and  his  resolu- 
tion of  amendment  more  strong  and  determined— at  the 
same  time,  he  feels  the  greatest  degree  of  gratitude 
towards  God,  in  accepting  the  sacrifice  of  a  beast  in- 
stead of  himself :  and,  under  the  influence  of  such  feel- 
ings, w^ould  not  only  be  ready  and  willing^  at  the  same 
time,  to  sacrifice  himself,  should  God  require  it,  but 
would  also,  like  Isaac,  consider  himself  to  be  glorified 
by  it.  Without  these  sensations,  all  the  sacrifices  in 
the  world  avail  nothing. 

The  sacrifice  has  only  been  resorted  to  by  our  fore- 
fathers, as  a  means  of  producing  the  feeling  of  mind, 
which  may  induce  them  to  expect  to  obtain  forgiveness 
of  their  sins. — And  now,  at  this  time,  without  doubt, 
tiiough  we  have  no  sacrifice^  it  is  in  the  power  of  eve- 
ry person,  truly  penitent,  (if  he  can  bring  himself  to  the 
slate  of  mind  before  described)  to  obtain  forgiveness  ol 
his  sins.  This,  to  be  sure,  may  be  done,  though  not  so 
easily  as  with  the  sacrifice  to  assist  and  promote  it. 

But,  it  seems,  you  think,  that  the  Almighty  is  not 


66 

mighty  enough  to  forgive  sins  without  sacrifice ;  then, 
pray,  how  do  you  expect  to  be  forgiven  ;  since,  as  you 
say,  the  sacrifice  and  oblation  have  long  ceased  ? — You 
will  reply,  by  the  sacrifice  of  Jesus, — Be  it  so. — You 
contend,  then,  that  the  sacrifice  of  Jesus  was  a  general 
sacrifice  for  all  sins,  committed  both  before  and  since  it 
took  place. — Saying  nothing  of  the  absurdity   of  sup- 
posing, that  an  all  powerful  God  could  not  j  ardon  sin, 
without  the  assistance  of  his  son, — without  sending  him 
into  the  world  to  be    sacrificed,  we  must,  is.  the  first 
place,  conclude,  that  all  those  hundreds  of  millions  of 
beings,  both  good  and  bad^  who  were  unacquainted  with 
the  sacrifice^  and  who  were  born  before   the  sacrifice  of 
Jesus,  remained  (at  the  least)  in  a  condemned  state,  from 
the  time  of  their  respective  births,  until  the  sacrificing 
of  Jesus  :  and  if  so,  it  is  incompatible  with  God's  ap- 
parent goodness  and  mercy,  that  Jesus  was  not  sacri- 
ficed nearly  40U0  years  before  he  really  was  ;  and  ra- 
ther extraordinary  that  God  should,  as  it  were,  have  ^e- 
thought  himself,  after  such  a  lapse  of  time,  that  such  a  sa- 
crifice was  necessary  : — for,  in  case  he  had  been  sacri- 
ficed at  the  creation  of  the  world,  those  hundreds  of 
miUions  of  poor  creatures,  would  not  have  continued  so 
long  in  a  state  of  condemnation  :  and  besides,  the  lives 
of  millions  of  poor  innocent  lambs  and  other  beasts, 
which    have   been  since  sacrificed,  might  have  been 
spared. 

If,  by  the  sacrifice  of  Jesus,  all  sin  was  pardoned,  not 
only  that  which  had  been  before  committed,  but  also 
what  might  be  committed  afterwards,  man  may  live  at 
ease, — may  indulge  in  all  his  evil  propensities,  and  com- 
mit what  sins  his  nature  may  incline  him  to,  if  he  can 
but  evade  the  laws  of  society  ;  for  he  need  have  no 

I 


66 

dread  of  punishment  heve^iheT,  all  his  sins  being  jpctre/on- 
ed  hy  anticipation. 

And  further,  if  all  sin  was  pardoned  by  the  sacrific* 
of  Jesus,  of  course  the  sin  committed  by  the  Jews  in  sa- 
criticinsj  him  (if  they  did  commit  sin  by  it)  must  also  be 
pardoned. — But,  from  what  Jesus  himself  said,  they 
were  innocent^  for  they  knew  not  what  they  did. — Did 
he  not  say,  Luke  xxiii.  ver.  34,  "  Father  forgive  them, 
for  they  know  not  what  they  do."  Now,  if  Jesus  de- 
sired that  they  chould  be  forgiven — if  Jesus  was 
the  Messiah^  and  if  the  Messiah  be  God — then,  the 
Jews,  whether  guilty  or  not,  were  certainly  forgiven  : 
for,  in  God,  the  desire  and  the  consummation  thereof  are 
one  and  the  same. 

Jesus  said,  that  the  Jews  were  ignorant  of  what  they 
did  ;  and  if  he  were  God^  he  certainly  knew  whether 
they  were  or  not. — And,  indeed,  if  he  were  the  true 
Messiah,  and  it  was  pre-ordained  ihdX  they  should  sacri- 
fice him,  it  was  absolutely  necessary  that  they  should  be 
kept  in  a  state  of  ignoraiice  of  it ;  or  else  they  would 
not  have  rejected  him,  and,  consequently,  not  have  sacri- 
ficed him  : — in  which  case,  the  world  would  have  been 
deprived  of  the  inestimable  benefits,  which,  you  say, 
result  from  that  sacrifice. — Then  would  it  he  just,  that 
the  Jews  should  be  punished  for  being  ignorant,  when  it 
was  necesary  that  they  should  be  so,  and  were  really 
made  so  by  God  himself.'* 

Upon  the  whole,  supposing  that  Jesus  was  the  true 
Messiah — if  the  sacrifice  of  him  was  so  beneficial  to  the 
world,  and  if  Jesus  came /or  ^Ae  ^w^o^c  of  being  sacri- 
ficed, of  course,  it  must  have  been  ordained  by  God, 
that  the  Jews  should  reject  him  ;  else  they  would  not 
have  sacrificed  him.— Then,  if  they  were  obliged  to  re- 


67 

jcct  him,  God  himself  must  have  kept  them  in  a  state 
of  ignorance^  that  he  was  the  true  Messiah,  else  they 
would  not  have  rejected  him. — Perhaps,  it  was  on  this 
account,  that  he  was  sent  in  such  a  suspicious  manner : 
for  one  would  suppose,  that,  if  God  would  have  had  us 
to  know,  that  he  was  really  the  promised  Messiah,  he 
would  have  sent  him  in  such  a  manner,  as  would,  at 
once,  remove  all  doubts  concerning  him  : — he  might 
have  sent  him  in  the  same  supernatural  manner,  in 
which  we  are  told,  he  will  make  his  appearance  at  his 
second  coming,  viz.  "  in  the  clouds,  with  great  power 
and  gloryy — But,  as  in  this  case,  according  to  your  be- 
lief, the  Gentiles  would  not  have  received  the  great  bene- 
fits,  which  are  said  to  have  resulted  from  his  sacrifice,  it 
seems  that  he  was  ^Jtirposely  sent  in  such  a  doubtful  man- 
ner, that  the  Jews  might  be  kept  in  a  state  of  ignorance 
of  his  being  the  true  Messiah,  and  should  reject  and  sa- 
crifice him. — JNow,  if  they  were  so  kept  in  a  state  of  ig* 
norance,  they  were  innocent  :  and,  if  on  that  account, 
Jesus  himself  declsired  them  innocent,  and  pardoned  them, 
I  cannot  possibly  comprehend,  why,  in  consequence  of 
their  having  sacrificed  Jesus,  they  should  be  punished 
in  that  severe  manner,  which  you  make  Jacob  and 
Daniel  predict  they  would. 

1  must  not  pass  over  a  remark  made  by  you,  m  this 
same  pamphlet  in  High  German,  that  it  would  be  ad- 
visable, that  the  Jews  should  have  the  scriptures  trans- 
lated into  the  language  of  the  different  nations  they  in- 
habit.— It  is  very  right  it  should  be  so,  for  the  reasons 
you  mention,  provided  the  translation  be  correct  and  im- 
partial.— But  long  before  your  birth,  and  before  this 
your  sage  advice  was  given,  in  almost  every  country, 
there  was  a  translation  of  the  scriptures,  in  the  lan- 
guage of  that  country. 


68 

In  answering  the  different  arguments  contained  in 
your  pamphlets,  though  1  have  carefully  studied  brevity 
and  conciseness,  yet  the  subject  has,  already,  far  ex- 
ceeded the  limits  I  at  first  supposed  it  would  extend 
to  ;  but,  notwithstanding  this,  1  must  not  pass  over,  in 
silence,  a  passage  contained  in  your  last  letter,  relating 
to  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Trinity  ;  lest,  you  should 
be  thereby  induced  to  conclude,  that  1  coincide  with 
you  In  opinion  thereon. 

You  say,  that 

*'  A  very  slight  acquaintance  with  the  Christian  religion,  would 
soon  convince  me,  that  the  Christian,  as  well  as  the  Jew,  believes 
in  no  more  than  one  Jehovah.. — But,  that  a  slight  acquaintance, 
also,  with  the  Old  Testament,  and  the  Medrashim,  would  easily 
convince  me,  that  our  Fathers  and  Rabbis  believed  the  same  as  the 
Christians  do,  thaiiiyi  the  one  Jehovah^  there  is  a  plurality,  viz.  Fa- 
ther, Son,  and  Holy  Ghost." 

It  is  only  by  reasoning  coolly  and  dispassionately, 
that  we  can  possibly  expect  to  discover  the  truth  or  ab- 
surdity of  such  an  abstruse  doctrine. 

As  a  first  step  towards  this,  let  us  endeavour  to 
prove,  that  there  is  a  Jehovah,  a  Supreme  Being;  and 
what  such  Supreme  Being  muat  be :  and  then  we 
will  proceed  to  argue  thereon. 

By  the  three  following  proofs,  it  is  clearly  demon- 
strated, that  there  must  be  a  Supreme  Being,  who  is 
the  causer  of  all  causes,  and  the  creator  of  all  the  dif- 
ferent spaces  and  creations,  simple  or  compound  :— 
that  he  himself  does  not  occupy  any  space,  but  governs 
all  space  ;  and,  consequently,  that  he  is  of  no  sub- 
stance : — that,  there  was  no  being  whatsoever  before 
him,  to  cause  his  being  ;  but,  that  he  is  the  beginner  of 
all  beginnings,  and  is  himself  without  beginning  and 
without  end,  both  in  point  of  time   and  space ;  and. 


69 

consequently,  that  no  word  applying  to  time  or  mea- 
surement, can  be  applicable  to  him: — and,  lastly,  that 
he  is  immutable,  indivisible,  and  eternal. 

1^/  Proof. — All  things  or  beings  in  the  universe,  whe- 
ther simple  or  compound,  must  occupy  difl'erent  spaces 
therein  ;  and,  neither  those  difierenl  beings  could  have 
existed^  or  been  caused  to  exist,  nor  could  the  limits  or 
boundaries  of  those  dilferent  spaces  have  been  defined 
or  regulated^  if  there  had  not  been  a  Being  existing  be- 
fore them,  to  cause  them  to  exist.,  and  their  limits  and 
boundaries  to  be  defined  and  regulated. — for,  they  could 
not  create  themselves.,  nor  cause  themselves  to  be  created^  or 
their  limits  and  boundaries  to  be  defined  and  regulated. — , 
Should  it  be  said,  that  that  were  possible,  it  must,  at  the 
same  time,  be  admitted,  that  such  a  being  or  such  a 
space  must  either  cause  or  create  or  define  itself,  6e/brc 
it  was  itself  \n  existence,  or  after  it  was  in  existence. — 
If  it  were  to  cause  or  create  or  define  itself,  before  it 
was  itself  in  existence,  it  was  then  nothing  ;  and,  out  of 
nothings  something  cannot  come. — Were  it  to  cause  or 
create  or  define  itself,  after  it  was  itself  in  existence, 
the  being  or  space  was  already  created  or  defined,  m 
its  own  existence  ;  and  there  could  be  no  occasion  to 
create  or  define  itself  o^am. 

Much  less  is  it  possible,  for  any  compound  thing  or 
being,  composed  of  different  particles,  to  compose  or  cre- 
ate itself,  without  the  assistance  of  a  pre-existing  Being, 
to  collect,  adjust  and  compose  those  different  particles, 
and  form  them  into  one. 

Then,  as  all  things,  or  beings,  or  spaces,  in  the  uni- 
verse, could  not  have  created  themselves,  nor  caused 
themselves  to  be  created,  or  their  hmits  and  boundaries 
to  be  defind  or  regulated,  we  must  come  to  this 


10 

\st  Conclusion. — ThcU  there  must  be  a  Supreme  Beings 
who  is  the  beginner  of  all  beginnings,  the  creator  of  all 
creations,  and  the  causer  of  all  causes — before  whom,  there 
laas  no  other  being  whatsoever,  to  cause  his  being. 

And,    further, — as    every   space  must   have   had  a 

pre-existing  being,  to  define  and  regulate  the  boundaries 

and  liniits  thereof,  which  pre-existing  being  must  be  the 

Supreme  Being,  we  come  to  this 

2d  Conclusion — That  the  Supreme  Being  is  of  no 
.  up  ace. 

And,  further, — as  he  is  of  no  space,  and,  as  every 
substance  must  occupy  space,  we  must  come  to  this 

3c/  Conclusion — That  the  Supreme  Being  is  of  no  sub- 
stance. 

And,  further, — as,  if  such  Supreme  Being  should 
have  been  composed  of  other  beings,  it  Avould  have  re- 
quired a  pre-existing  being  to  compose  those  different 
beings  into  one,  in  which  case,  it  would  not  be  the  first 
and  Supreme  Being,  we  must  come  to  this 

4:th  Conclusion — That  the  Supreme  Being  i^  not  com- 
posed of  different  particles. 

Now,  as  it  is  before  proved,  that  all  beings,  simple  or 
compound,  and  all  spaces,  must  have  had  a  being  ex- 
isting in  time  before  them,  to  create  them,  or  cause 
them  to  be  created  or  defined  ;  it  consequently  follows 
that  such  beings,  or  spaces,  must  have  had  a  beginning, 
both  in  time  and  in  space  ;  because,  that  pre-existing 
being  must  have  caused  or  created  or  defined  them 
sometime. 

From  which  it  is  evident,  that  the  beginning  of  time 
and  the  beginning  of  space  are  inseparably  connected  to- 
gether :  and,  that  whatever  has  had  a  beginning  in  one, 
must  also  have  had  a  beginning  in  the  other  ;  as  there 


71 

must  have  been  a  pre-existing  being,  to  cause  the  be- 
ginning in  space^  sometime. — And,  it  is  also  evident,  that 
what  has  not  had  a  beginning  in  one  of  them,  must  be 
an  uncreated  being, — a  being,  before  which  there  was 
not  a  pre-existing  being,  to  begin  it  in  that  one ;  and, 
consequently,  it  cannot  have  had  a  beginning  in  the 
other, 

2d  Proof, — As  every  thing,  or  being,  or  space,  in  the 
universe,  (as  before  proved)  must  have  had  a  beginning 
in  time  and  in  space^  from  a  pre-existing  being,  such 
thing,  or  being,  or  space,  must  have  an  end^  also,  from 
the  same  pre-existing  being  in  time  after  its  beginning : 
and  also,  an  end  in  space,  wherever  the  space  next  to  it 
begins  :  which  other  space  must  also  end  at  the  begin- 
7iing  of  the  next  space. — For,  as  there  are  numberless  and 
distinct  spaces,  each  begin  where  the  preceding  space 
c/26/^,and  end  where  the  folloiving  space  begins ;  and  so  on. 

Then,  a  being,  of  a  power  so  wonderful  and  incom- 
prehensible, as  to  exist  without  a  beginnings  and  conse- 
quently, without  diUy  pre-existing  cause  to  begin  it,  either 
in  time  or  space,  cannot  have  an  end^  either  in  time  or 
space  :  for,  as  that  being  itself  must  be  the  creator  and 
ruler  of  both  time  and  space,  it  must,  consequently,  be 
itself  oi^  710  time  nor  space  ;  and,  every  thought  or  word 
implying  time  or  space,  must  be  totally  inapplicable  to 
him — as  to  him,  they  are  words  of  no  import  or  signifi- 
cation. 

And,  further, — it  is  clear,  that  whatever  has  an  end, 
either  in  time  or  space,  must  have  had  a  beginning  be- 
fore, both  in  time  and  space,  from  the  pre-existing  being 
who  made  that  end: — for,  as  before  proved,  if  it   has 

*  Observe,  tliat  the  word  "  em/,"  here  used,  is  not  meant  to  signify  an 
end  in  existence  ;  but,  an  end  only  of  tlie  measurement  or  limits  of  beinjs 

or  spacer 


72 

not  had  a  beginning,  it  could  not  have  an  endf  neither  iu 
^iW  nor  space. 

And,  also, — a  being  which  has  no  etid,  neither  in 
time  nor  space,  cannot  have  had  a  beginning ;  for,  as  be- 
fore proved,  if  it  has  had  a  beginning,  it  must  also  have 
an  end. 

Now,  we  sura  up  the  conclusions  from  the  above 
reasoning,  as  follow :  viz. — that  the  beginning  of  time 
and  space ,  and  the  end  thereof,  are  inseparably  connect- 
ed; — that  whatever  has  had  a  beginning  in  time  and 
space,  must  have  an  end  also  in  both; — that  whatever 
has  an  end,  must  have  had  a  beginning  ; — that  what- 
ever has  not  had  a  beginniiig,  cannot  have  an  end; — 
and,  that  whatever  has  not  an  end,  cannot  have  had  a 
beginning. 

From  which,  it  is  evident,  that  every  thing,  or  being, 
or  space,  in  the  universe,  of  which  we  can  see  or  ima- 
gine depart,  where  we  may  choose  to  make,  or  conceive 
there  is,  either  a  beginning  or  an  end  of  the  whole,  at  the 
end  of  the  next  space  to  it ;  or,  at  which  part,  we  may 
imagine  the  whole  might  have  begun  or  endid  ;  I  say* 
every  such  thing,  or  being,  or  space,  must  have  had  a 
beginning  and  an  end,  both  in  time  and  in  space, — Then, 
as  every  thing  which  has  had  no  beginning  in  time  and 
space,  cannot  have  an  end  in  either ;  and,  as  it  has  been 
before  proved,  that  the  Supreme  Being  could  not  have 
had  a  beginning  in  either,  we  come  to  this 

5th  Conclusion — That  the  Supreme  Being  cannot  have 
an  end  either  in  time  or  in  space. 

And,  as  he  has  no  end,  we  come  again  to  the  \st  con- 
elusion — that  he  cannot  have  had  a  beginning. 

And,  further, — as  there  is  no  space  in  the  universe,  of 
which  we  cannot  sec.  on  at  least,  imagine  some  part. 


73 

where  wc  may  form  to  ourselves,  a  beginning  or  an  end 
of  the  ivhole^  at  the  end  of  the  space  next  to  it ;  and,  con- 
sequently, (ag  before  proved)  as  every  space  must  have 
both  a  beginning  and  an  end^  and  as  the  Supreme  Being 
has  neither^  we  come  again  to  the  2d  and  3d  conclusions 
— that  the  Supreme  Being  cannot  be  of  any  space ;  and^ 
consequently^  of  no  substance, 

3d  Proof — A  being  without  substance  and  without 
space — without  beginning  and  without  6wc?-and,  to  which, 
consequently,  no  word  implying  time  or  measurement^ 
such  as  larger  or  smaller^  &;c.  can  be  applied ;  such  a 
being,  I  say,  must  be  indivisible. — For,  were  we  to  ima- 
gine that  it  were  possible  that  even  such  a  being  conld 
be  divided,  or,  that  a  part  could  be  taken  away  from  it, 
even  momentarily,  then  there  must  be  a  beginning  and 
an  end  of  both  parts^  at  the  place  where  the  division 
should  be  made. — But,  whether  we  must  suppose,  that 
the  part  taken  away,  has  or  has  not  a  beginning  and  an 
end^  is  immaterial :  for,  even  if  we  were  to  imagine,  that 
it  has  no  beginning  nor  end,  it  cannot  be  denied,  that 
the  remcdning  part,  after  such  other  part  having  been 
taken  away  from  it,  must  be,  by  so  much,  less  than  it 
was  before. — And  if  we  are  to  suppose,  that  the  remain- 
ing pxirt,  though  by  so  muoh  le^s  than  it  was  before,  is 
still  without  beginning  and  end,  we  must  then  conceive 
it  to  be  possible,  that  one  being  ivithout  beginning  and 
end,  may  be  larger  than  another  being  without  beginning 
and  end. — In  which  case,  the  words  larger  and  smaller^ 
may  be  applied,  even  to  beings  without  beginning  and 
end ;  which,  as  shown  before,  is  quite  incompatible 
with  reason. 

Then,  as  it  is  before  proved,  that  the  Supreme  Being 

K 


74 

is  df  of  no  substance  nor  space^  and  without  beginning  and 
end^  we  must  noio  come  to  this 

6//i  Conclusion — That  the  Supreme  Being  is  indivisible. 
These  proofs  are   incontrovertible  :    and  if  they  be 
seriously  considered,  and  connected,  and  if,  at    the 
same   time,  it  is  borne  in  mind,   that  the  first    man, 
or  i\ie  first  of  every  creature,  was  composed  of  the  four 
elements  5  and,  that  even  the  universe  itself  is  composed 
of  different  planets,  which  occupy  different  spaces^  and 
each  of  which  has  its  own  separate  and  distinct  limits 
and  regulations  appointed  and  allotted  to  it,  and  a  dis- 
tinct duty  to  perform,  Avithout  change  or  deviation,  all 
tending  to  one  great  and  general  purpose  or  design : 
I  say,  when  this  is  seriously  considered,  we  cannot  but 
be  convinced,  that  there  is  one  supreme  and  immutable 
being,  who  caused  all  these  creations  and  spaces,  and  ap- 
pointed and  allotted  to  them  their  several  limits  and 
regulations,  and  who  rules  and  governs  them  : — that 
such  supreme  being  is  himself  o/"  720  space  whatsoever  : — 
that  he  is  the  beginner  of  all  beginnings,  and  that  there 
must  have   been  no  being  whatsoever  before  him,    to 
cause  him  to  be : — that  he  is  7iot  compound  or  composed 
of  different  particles : — that  he  is  of  no  substance  what- 
soever : — that  he  is  without  beginning  and  end,  both  in 
time  and  space  : — that  he  is  indivisible,  and  that  no  word 
implying  time,  or  space,  or  measurement,  such  as  larger 
or  smaller,  &;c.  can  be  applicable  to  him  :— and  lastly, 
that  he  is  immutable  and  eternal 

Now,  I  have  laid  a  foundation,  upon  which  I  must 
endeavour  to  build  arguments,  in  support  of  my  opin- 
ions on  this  subject. 

You  say,  that  "  the  Gentiles,  as  well  as  the  Jews, 
believe  only  in  07ie  Jehovah  ;"  and  further  add,  "  that 


7^ 


a  slight  acquaintance  with  the  Qld  Testament  and  Me- 
drashim,  would  easily  convince  me,  diat  our  Fathers  and 
Rabbis  believed  the  same  as  Christians  do,  that  in  the 
one  Jehovah  there  is  a  plurality^  viz.  Father,'  Son,  and 
Holy  Ghost." 

Now,  I  beheve,  I  have  a  slight  acquaintance  with  the 
Old  Testament  and  Medrashim,  and  yet  1  have  not 
been  convinced  of  what  you  tell  me  a  slight  acquaint- 
ance would  easily  convince  me  :  and,  therefore,  the 
above  slight  assertion  will  not  induce  me,  so  easily^  to 
slight  that  slight  acquaintance. 

In  the  first  place,  let  me  ask  you,  whether  the  son 
came  after  the  father,  and  was  created  by  the  father? — 
If  so,  we  ought  to  serve  only  the  father,  who  created  the 
son  (and,  perhaps,  many  other  sons  unknown  to  us)  and 
all  creation. 

Is  the  son  co-eternal  with  the  father,  and  each  of  them 
without  beginning  and  end? — If  so,  (though  the  word 
son  does  not  properly  accord  with  this  idea,  as  we  aro 
accustomed  to  think,  that  a  son  naturally  comes  at  a 
lime  after  the  father^)  I  ask  you,  whether  they  are,  or 
can  be  divided,  and  whether  ecch  of  them  is  capable  of 
godhead,  and  is  independent  of  the  other  ? — U  this  should 
be  the  case,  it  seems,  that  it  is  their  will  that  we  should 
not  know  it ;  as,  otherwise,  they  could  easily  convince 
us  of  it,  by  specimens  of  no  more  nor  less  than  three 
separate  and  distinct  creations  of  each  being,  or,  at  least, 
of  some  of  them,  such,  by  which  they  could  separately 
be  distinguished, — Then,  if  we  are  kept  ignorant  that  it 
is  so,  it  is  not  reconcilcable  with  justice,  that  we  should 
ha  punished  for  serving  only  one  of  them,  by  the  title  of 
father. — Indeed,  it  would  be  well,  if  we  could  serve  that 
one  as  we  ou<rht  to  do. 


7G 

But,  even,  if  we  were  to  know  that  there  are  three^  if 
each  of  the  three  be  capable  of  godhead^  and  is  indepen- 
dent of  the  other ^  then,  as  we  serve  one  of  them,  which  you 
denominate  father^  one  would  think  it  to  be  quite  suffi- 
cient ;  for,  he  being  capable  of  doing  the  same  as  all  the 
three^  we  cannot  have  any  occasion  for  the  other  two. — 
And,  as  we  cannot  well  suppose,  that  the  three  should 
he  jealous  of  each  other  ;  or,  indeed,  if  they  should  be 
so,  they  being  co-equal  in  power,  and,  consequently,  one 
of  them  being  capable  oi protecting  us  from  the  effects  of 
the  jealousy  of  the  o/^cr5,  pray,  by  which  of  the /Arcc  are 
we  punished  ? 

And  further,  if  they  are  three  distinct  beings,  they 
must  have  three  different  spaces  ;  and  as  before  proved, 
every  space  must  have  a  beginning  and  an  end^  both  in 
time  and  space :  therefore,  each  of  these  three  distinct 
supreme  beings  must  have  had  a  beginning  and  an  end^ 
both  in  time  and  space  :  which,  as  before  proved,  the 
Supreme  Being  cannot  Imve  in  either. 

Are  they  consubstantial  and  indivisible,  as  well  as  co- 
eternal :  and  is  one  of  them  incapable  o{  godhead  without 
the  other  ? 

If  so,  I  cannot  conceive  how  they  can  be  particulari- 
sed, and  distinguished  by  three  different  names,  when  they 
must  be  of  no  substance  nor  space,  and  without  begin- 
7iing  and  end. — (Indeed,  we  ourselves  give  several  gen- 
eral names  to  the  father  only ;  but  the  word  son,  whe- 
ther general  or  to  distinguish  a  part  only,  I  should  think, 
*is  quite  inapplicable  to  God.) 

And  further, — If  they  can  be  distinguished,  then,  as 
they  are  consubstantial,  they  must  be  composed — one  Je- 
hovah composed  of  three  ;— and,it  is  before  proved,  that  a 
compound  being  requires  a  pre-existing  being,  to  collect, 


adjust,  and  compose  the  (liferent  particles,  of  which  it  is 
composed,  and  to  form  them  into  one. — Then,  of  course, 
we  ought  to  serve  that  composer  who  composed  and 
formed  the  three  into  o/?c  ;  as  he  himself  onli/  must  be 
the  Sifpreme  Being  ;  and  not  the  comjoosition  which  he 
composed. 

And  further, — you  behove,  that  the  Virgin  Mary 
conceived  a  part  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and,  that  by  that 
conception,  the  son,  as  a^ar/from  the  three  came  to  this 
w^orld.  Now  I  have  already  proved,  that  it  cannot  pos- 
sibly be  imagined,  that  a  being,  such  as  the  Supreme 
Being  must  be,  without  beginning  or  end,  and  without 
substance  and  space,  can  have  ^part  divided  from  it,  evcu 
momentarily  : — and,  besides,  such  part  would  have  a 
beginning  and  an  end,  both  in  time  and  in  space,  and  the 
remaining  part  would  be  left  incomplete,  and  incapable  of 
the  full  powers  o( godhead. 

And  lastly, — if  the  three  be  consubstantial  and  co-eter- 
nal and  indivisible,  and  form  together  one  Jehovah,  still 
you  acknowledge,  that  we  do  serve  that  one  Jehovah 
as  well  as  the  Christians, — Then,  it  appears,  that  the 
only  dispute  between  us,  is  as  to  the  composition  of  this 
one  Jehovah  ;  you  pretending  to  be  better  informed  on 
that  subject  than  we  are;  though  that  Jehovah  himself, 
who  created  us  as  we  are,  and  who  knows  us  to  be  z;i- 
c«;96/6/c  of  conceiving  what  he  really  is,  has  not  thought 
proper  to  communicate  to  us  in  an  indubious  manner,  that 
he  is  compiosid  of  more  than  one. — But  surely  it  is  im- 
material to  us,  whether  he  be,  or  be  not  composed,  or 
whether  he  be  composed  of  three  or  three  hundred,  so 
long  as  w^e  serve  that  Jehovah,  in  the  state  that  he  is. — 
IS  or  can  we  suppose,  that  it  could  make  any  difference 
to    Jehovah   himself  :  or,  that  he    should  punish   us 


78 

for  not  hiowing  that  lie  is  <:omposcd^  when  we  be- 
lieve in  him,  in  whatever  state  he  is.— —And  yet,  you 
contend,  that  the  Jews  are  severely  punished  for 
rejecting  Jesus  :  but  if  Jesus  be  included  in  that  one 
Jehovah^  then,  even  if  we  did  reject  him,  when 
he  was  separated  from  that  Jehovah,  still  we  must  have 
believed  in  him,  at  the  very  same  time :  because,  if  we 
believed  in  that  Jehovah^  and  Jesj/s  was  icnluded  m 
him,  and  was  one  and  the  same  with  him,  of  course 
we  could  not  but  believe  in  Jesus^  even  at  that  time  ; 
and  much  more  rww^  when  he  is  not  separated  from  Je- 
hovah. If  the  component  parts  be  all  one^  insepa- 
ble  and  indivisible^  we  cannot  worship  any  part ^  because 
there  cannot  be  any  part.  If  we  worship  Jehovah^  and 
if  that  Jehovah  be  composed^  we  must,  of  course,  wor- 
ship his  whole  composition. — Then,  after  all  our  reason- 
ing, it  seems,  at  last,  that  you  agree  to  what  I  said  in 
the  beginning  of  my  answer,  that  we  all  serve  one  God 
at  last,  though  in  different  ways  :" — then,  I  cannot  see 
that  there  is  any  occasion,  for  you  and  others  to  take 
so  much  pains  to  endeavour  to  convert  the  Jews,  or 
for  me  to  endeavour  to  convert  you  :  for,  as  you  ac- 
knowledge, that  both  Jews  and  Gentiles  serve  one  Jeho- 
vah ;  in  whatever  state  he  is,  whether  he  be,  or  be  not 
composed^  is  quite  immaterial  to  us. — And  yet  you  most 
inconsistently  endeavour  to  persuade  us,  that  what  is 
quite  immaterial  to  ourselves^  is  so  'material  to  Jehovah, 
that  he,  all  merciful  as  he  is,  should  be  so  unmerciful 
with  us,  as  to  punish  us  on  this  account,  (though  innocent^ 
in  the  manner  you  make /aco^  and  Daniel  to  have  pre- 
dicted ! 

I  must  not  take  my  leave  of  you,  without  observing, 
that  through  the  whole  of  my  answer,  I  have  confined 


79 

myself,  as  strictly  as  I  could,  to  the  different  arguments 
contained  in  your  pamphlets  and  letters  ;  and  have 
carefully  abstained  from  introducing  any  extraneous 
matter. — I  have  studied,  also,  to  avoid  giving  offence  to 
any  one ;  and  I  am  not  aware,  that  any  thing  that  I 
have  written,  can  be  looked  upon  in  that  light,  or  can 
be  considered  to  be  any  ways  offensive. 

In  your  pamphlet,  you  say,  that  "  what  you  have 
written,  you  have  written  w^ith  a  view  of  stirring  up  the 
Jews,  to  a  serious  examination  of  the  great  question  at 
issue  between  them  and  the  Christians,"  and  that  ''  you 
would  likewise  reason  and  argue  with  them,  from  their 
own  sacred  books,  and  from  the  writings  of  tiieir  ac- 
credited commentators." — After  this  and  after  the  re- 
peated public  challenges,  which  you  have  given  them, 
to  dispuie  and  argue  on  this  subject,  surely  it  cannot, 
by  any  one,  be  considered  a  culpable  act,  to  accept  of 
such  challenge,  in  defence  of  my  own  religion,  and  (af- 
ter having  seriously  considered  your  arguments)  to  ven- 
ture, at  your  own  instance,  to  give  ray  humble  opinion 
thereon. — My  only  wish,  and  my  only  motive  in  writ- 
ing, is  to  be  convinced  5  and  the  only  way  to  come  at 
conviction,  is  by  reasoning.  If  I  err,  1  am  open  to  con- 
viction ;  and,  w  hatever  you  write  in  reply  to  me,  you 
may  depend  upon  being  seriously  and  impartially  con- 
sidered.—Neither  bigotry  nor  superstition  are  in  the 
way  to  prevent  my  listening  to  reason. 

But,  so  far  as  we  have  gone,  the  conviction  on  my 
mind  is,  that  the  errors  are  on  your  side  of  the  ques- 
tion :  and  I  am  induced  to  hope,  that  you  also  will  be 
convinced  thereof;  and  that  you  will  return  and  seek 
the  true  explanation  of  the  prophets  ;  and  that  you 
may  be  saved  W\i\\o\\i  sacrifice. 

J,  MKELSBURGER, 


.#*^ 


m 


^-'¥ 


Cl:       ■     ^ 


